Preamble

The House met at half-past Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[DR. HORACE KING in the Chair]

10.35 a.m.

The Chairman: For the convenience of the Committee, I have placed in the "No" Lobby a list of the provisional selection and grouping of Amendments.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: May I raise a point on that, Dr. King? I notice that in the list which you so kindly put in the "No" Lobby you propose to call first Amendment, No.1 in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except a person previously convicted of murder who shall murder again"—
and that Amendment No.4 in clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except an already convicted murderer who, in the course of life imprisonment, shall murder again"—
should be discussed with it.
Of course, no one can question your Ruling and we shall have to accept it as your final decision. But, with the greatest respect, may I say that these two Amendments are quite different and I do not think that they can be said to be similar in any way. They refer to different cases of murder. Some hon. Members may well want to put forward a plea against Amendment No.1 and may well decide to support Amendment No.4, and vice versa. May I make a plea to you, Dr. King, that we should be allowed to discuss the two Amendments separately as we will certainly have different votes arising out of them?

Mr. R. T. Paget: In fact, the two Amendments are exactly the same. A person who is serving a life sentence is always undergoing that life sentence whether he be on licence or not. Therefore, Amendment No.4 is precisely the same as Amendment No.1.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: With great respect, may I point out that Amendment No.1 is quite different from Amendment No.4. In the case of the first Amendment, a man may have committed murder and served his sentence and been released and then commit murder again. It is quite different from Amendment No.4.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assume that the Chairman read the Amendments before he selected and grouped them. It will be possible for hon. Members, if they so wish, to vote on Amendment No. 4 when the time comes. I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the course which I have suggested were adopted.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I am willing to listen to points of order, but we have a very important Bill to discuss and I hope that we will not spend too much time on light points of order.

Mr. van Straubenzee: This is a wholly separate point, Dr. King, and one which, I think, is of substance. I understand from the notice which is customarily put up in the Members' Lobby that Standing Committee C considering the Criminal Justice Bill is sitting at this moment. For the guidance of hon. Members who are on Standing Committees on Wednesdays, may I ask for guidance as to what arrangements have been made to notify the Chairman and Members of the Committee when and if there is a Division here so that they may be permitted to take part in that Division?

The Chairman: That does not concern me at the moment, but the simple answer is—and I thought that the hon. Member knew it—that there are Division bells round the House and that Members of Standing Committees can hear a Division bell.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER.)

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "murder" to insert:
except a person previously convicted of murder who shall murder again".
May I first welcome the opportunity to put forward the arguments which we were not able to put forward upstairs in Committee. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) succeeded in his Motion to bring the Bill back to the Floor of the House. I welcome this opportunity to put forward Amendments in the hope of being able to persuade right hon. and hon. Members by the force of the argument and by the persuasiveness for which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) asked in the proceedings in Committee.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend has just said that he hopes to be able to persuade hon. Members. May I point out that the Government have called this meeting of the House to discuss the Bill on a Wednesday morning, instead of during their own time, when hardly any Ministers representing the Government are on the Front Bench opposite? I recognise, of course, that the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, is present as well as her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister, however, is not here and there are no Ministers—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that we will not have frivolous interruptions.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am sure that the points made by my hon. Friend will be noted and understood by hon. Members.
I should make plain to start with my reasons for moving the Amendment and for putting my name to various other Amendments. First, I do not believe that the Bill is in the true interest of maintaining law and order. This is obvious from the fact that I was one of those who opposed the Bill on Second Reading. I felt it right to make my position clear so that there is no misunderstanding about it. Nevertheless, the House gave the Bill a Second Reading. Our task, therefore, is to try to minimise the damage that the Bill will

do and to improve it as far as one is able, accepting the principle which has been established by the House on Second Reading.
An extraordinary situation has arisen. Judging from my experience in the House, it is unique. I refer to the fact that there has been a Committee stage which has gone over the Amendments which are now being discussed. They have been dealt with in complete detail. Indeed, there was three-and-a-half hours of discussion on identical Amendments. It was rather abruptly truncated upstairs by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when some of my right hon. and hon. Friends still wished to speak. I read every word of the discussion in Committee upstairs and I sat in the public gallery and listened to several of the sessions. Inevitably, some of the arguments—probably the majority of them—which will be put forward have been discussed before. To hon. Members who have heard the arguments in Committee upstairs, I apologise for the repetition.
The basic principles on which I begin discussing the Amendment are, first, that I believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, particularly to the habitual criminal, and that it has had the effect of stopping the criminal from the ultimate act. The second principle from which I start is that crimes of violence—indeed, violence in general—are on the increase. The Minister of State accepted that this was so and it is generally agreed that crimes of violence are on a rising crescendo.
It would, therefore, seem that, as the prizes for the criminal are increasing in size, and as the sentences now being imposed by the courts are becoming heavier and more severe, the criminal is put in the position of being more liable to take extreme action to avoid this happening. Quite obviously, it is in his interest to avoid capture if he can. This leads one to assume that there could be an increase in the numbers of the type of people whom we are discussing in the Amendment.
Even if that were not true, those who until the Second Reading of the Bill would have been hanged for murder will now be kept in prison—at least, until they are released on licence. The Amendment deals particularly with those who,


before the Bill was given a Second Reading, would have been hanged and those who might in the future take the ultimate decision to kill either to try to avoid capture by police or to avoid recognition by somebody else and who, therefore, will be kept in our prisons or may later be released.
I should like to deal with the kind of arguments which, I feel sure, the Home Secretary and hon. Members will put forward. When I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton in Committee upstairs, I found his speeches extremely sincere and logical, but he was arguing that there was no case from past history to suggest that murderers would commit a second crime, and, indeed, that history showed that they did not do so. The hon. and learned Member said that there was no record—and the Minister of State supported him in this—of this type of crime in all the hon. Lady's researches throughout European countries. He said that murderers, when released, did not commit a second crime and that, on the whole, violence was not committed by murderers when serving prison sentences. According to the hon. Lady's researches, there was no record of convicted murderers who were kept in gaol in Europe committing a second murder while in gaol.

10.45 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I am sure that the hon. Member would not like to mislead the Committee. I am not sure what he meant by "no record". The records are here and they show conclusively that there are hardly any such murders. I do not know in what respect the hon. Member is using the word "record".

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What does the hon. Lady mean by "hardly any"? She gave the figures to the Committee upstairs. Perhaps later, when the hon. Lady addresses the Committee, she will be able to elaborate what she means by "hardly any". There are some. I accept that the records produced by the hon. Lady showed that there were a few instances, but not many instances, of this having occurred.

Mr. David Webster: I am sorry that I cannot hear my hon. Friend very well. I gather him to

be saying that the Minister of State suggested that there were very few instances of released murderers committing a second offence. Is there not a recent example within the recollection of hon. Members?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Indeed, that is so. I was saying—and I am sorry that my hon. Friend could not hear me very well—that the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton was supported by the Minister of State to the effect that murderers who were in prison or who had been released did not, on the whole, commit second murders—

Miss Bacon: indicated assent.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: —and that the hon. Lady had figures to prove this. It must, however, be pointed out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has reminded us, that there have been murderers who have committed a second murder.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton argued that because that was so, we must change the basis of our argument, accept the facts as they are and move on from there. The point is, however, that in this country people who have been convicted of capital murder have hitherto been executed. They have not been kept in prison. Therefore, there is no past history on which we can judge whether they commit second murders. If the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne quote the European example to show that, because this has not happened in Europe therefore it would not happen here, their assumption is a false one. As my hon. Friends pointed out in Committee upstairs, the conditions in European prisons are extremely harsh. On the whole, European prisons—I am not talking about Scandinavia—try to break a man's spirit when he is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for having committed murder.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman assist us by telling us what is the purpose of the Amendment? Is it that such a second murderer deserves to hang, or is it that he thinks that such a murderer would be more deterrable by the threat of a death penalty than other murderers would be?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the hon. Gentleman waits for me to develop my argument, he will find out. I am not going to


take up too much of the Committee's time.
I was talking about the comparison made with European prisons. I have been inside these prisons as a prisoner and seen what happens there. They adopt much harsher methods for dealing with prisoners than we would allow, and it is right that we should not allow that sort of thing to happen here. They try to break the spirit of the convicted and condemned murderer.

Mr. Paget: I assume that when the hon. Gentleman is talking of Europe he is talking of France. I think that, on the whole, with the possible exception of Spain, which I do not know, all the other European countries tend to have rather less harsh systems than we do.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will my hon. Friend take into account what happens in Italy, where quite frequently a convicted murderer serves 25 to 30 years, and is very rarely let out?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was referring not to France particularly, but to Spain and the Benelux countries, and I assure the Committee that what I have said is true, as. I found out from bitter experience.
The point is that we cannot take what happens in Europe as a guide to what will happen here, because their systems and standards are entirely different from ours. God forbid that we should ever have those standards in our prison system. It may be said that some countries in Europe have moved ahead since the days about which I am speaking. I hope that they have, but, nevertheless, to refer to what has happened in Europe and say that that is what will happen here is a false argument. It is not one which will stand up to examination, and it is not one which should be the main consideration in deciding whether to accept the. Amendment.
The hon. Lady the Minister of State said in Committee upstairs that there were many vicious and brutal criminals in our gaols today. It was only by good luck on their part that they did not kill when they attacked and maimed their victims. If the penalty for going a little further is only life imprisonment, which in fact is a sentence of only eight to 12 years, these vicious and brutal criminals could well be in the category of people

about whom we are talking, and to whom the Amendment refers.
In Committee upstairs my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out that the people who had been convicted of capital murder were, on the whole, people who had committed crimes in the past. They had records, and were not the kind of people who committed murders on the spur of the moment; murders of a non-capital character, as differentiated in the 1957 Act.

Miss Bacon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. He keeps quoting little bits of my speeches upstairs, completely out of context. What I was saying when I said that we had vicious and brutal criminals in our prisons was that we had to look after them in the past inside our prisons because they had not been murderers, and so it was no new problem to have to look after this type of person in our prisons.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I did not want to weary the Committee by quoting whole chunks of what the hon. Lady said upstairs. I was using the point that she made that these people exist, and are in prison. At the moment it is sheer luck that they have not killed in the process of committing crimes. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the Committee will accept that that is so. My argument is that if the death penalty is removed, they might go a stage further, either by bad luck, or with intent, and become the kind of person with whom we are dealing in the Amendment.
As far as I can understand from what the Home Secretary said during the Second Reading debate, people who are convicted of capital murder can, and will, be released after eight to 12 years, during which period they will undergo corrective training. Some people will benefit from such corrective training, but I am certain that some will not. We have been given a lot of figures of the type of people involved. I submit to the Committee that unless we adopt the European system of breaking a man's spirit, or of keeping him in gaol, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) says, for 25 years, we are liable to find people of this type being released into society without being reformed, and


without the corrective treatment being fully effective.
It is wrong for the Committee to take the chance that these people, either inside prison or outside it, will commit a second murder. We should ensure that there is the full deterrent effect to try to stop them so doing. We must remember that, as the Bill stands, they will know the worst that the law can do to them. They will know that the most they can get is a sentence to eight to 12 years. They will know what will happen. They will have experience of it. Thus, if they are habitual criminals, and they go back to a life of crime when they are released, they will take even greater care not to be caught a second time, but, even if they are caught, they will not be afraid of what will happen to them.
I do not think it is right that this Committee should allow that type of person to be released into society without the maximum deterrent being available in an effort to safeguard the public and the individual. I believe that it is our duty in this Committee to provide the maximum safeguard for society, and, indeed, to provide the maximum deterrent to a second crime of this nature being committed.
I believe that we must take this step. I believe that we must accept the Amendment because, if we do not, society and the people of this country will never forgive us if by any chance a second murder is committed by somebody who has been convicted of capital murder. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is relevant to this argument. I believe that society will not forgive us, either as individuals or as Parliament, if that sort of thing happens. That is why I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is a deterrent to stop something which I believe could well be to the detriment of our society.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I am glad to have the opportunity to support the Amendment, because I was not a member of the Committee upstairs, and I have an observation to make in connection with the Amendment based on personal experience in my constituency.
It is difficult to understand how the multi-murderer can ever be sane. A man who commits a whole series of murders

would, I assume, be regarded as mentally affected in any case, but there was an instance in my constituency in which the court found that the man was sane. That was the case of Miles Gifford, which happened a few years ago. He was the son of the woman vice-chairman of my Conservative Association. On the day that he committed his murders his mother was in Plymouth with my wife. We do not know exactly what happened. Miles Gifford was always in trouble. He had a quarrel with his father and deliberately murdered him. Not content with that, he waited in St. Austell for a considerable time for his mother to come back in order to murder her as well.
11.0 a.m.
His mother had been in Plymouth with my wife, and she invited my wife to go home to tea with her in St. Austell. Had my wife done so, presumably she would also have been murdered. Fortunately, she had a speaking engagement in Plymouth and did not go, but the unfortunate Mrs. Gifford went home and was murdered by her son—or, rather, not completely murdered; he knocked her about, put her in a wheelbarrow, and threw her over a cliff. She was still alive when he did this. He also threw over the cliff the body of his father.
He then proceeded to steal a car, go to London, pick up a girl and go to a dance. Anyone would think that in those circumstances he could not possibly have been sane, but in the trial that subsequently took place, at which a great deal of medical evidence was given, it was found that he was sane, and he was hanged.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: We are all interested in the case that the hon. Member is citing, but has not he perceived that the Amendment now under discussion would not cover that case? It proposes to retain the death penalty only for second murderers who have already been convicted. In the case cited by the hon. Member the murderer had not already been convicted.

Mr. Wilson: I am aware of that. My point is that if it is possible for a man to be so callous as this man was, the fact that he had committed one murder and had been convicted would not have prevented his committing another murder


at the first opportunity. Assuming he was sane

Mr. Archie Manuel: He was not sane.

Mr. Wilson: The medical evidence was that he was sane. He was completely callous as to the number of people he murdered, or the circumstances in which he murdered them. Had he been imprisoned for murder and subsequently released I have no doubt that he would have committed another murder or, if he had the chance, before release he would have murdered a warder in order to escape. He was indifferent to the preservation of life.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Member making a case that it is plain that hanging is not a deterrent in this sort of situation?

Mr. Wilson: I am not suggesting that it would be a deterrent in this case. I do not know what we can do with a man of this sort in order to protect the public, other than hang him, or dispose of him in some way—because he seems to be entirely indifferent to the preservation of life. Whether or not the medical evidence in that case was correct is a matter for argument, but it seems to me that there are cases—

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is not the hon. Member making a case for a change in the law on the question whether an alleged murderer is or is not sane? He is talking about medical evidence, but medical evidence can be considered only within the context of laws which most medical opinion believes are completely out of date. In the case to which the hon. Member is referring I am positive that most medical men would now say that the murderer was completely insane.

Mr. Wilson: One would have thought so. But I would not wish to abolish the death penalty for multiple murder unless we could find a satisfactory means of defining insanity.

Mr. Paget: Is not the case that the hon. Member is making really a case for hanging the insane? They are the most dangerous.

Mr. Wilson: I do not think so. At any rate, the point that I wanted to bring before the Committee was the question

whether or not there are persons who are so dangerous that it would be wrong to let them out again or to allow them to remain in prison where they might murder a warder. Such cases are no doubt exceptional, but the law must provide for the exceptional case, and for those reasons I support the Amendment.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: We are discussing two Amendments. There seems to me to be some distinction in effect, if not in kind, between the two. The Amendment that has been moved would exclude from the provisions of the Bill those people who murder for a second time. The other Amendment is a little more selective, in that it would exclude those people who murder for a second time in the course of life imprisonment. That Amendment may cover the same sort of person, but it is more likely that in that case the second murder would be that of a prison officer or another prisoner.
I agree that there is a strong case for excluding from the provisions of the Bill all those who kill more than once, as Section 6 of the Homicide Act provides, but the strongest case of all is for protecting public servants, and it is with that object in mind that the second Amendment has been tabled.
All hon. Members have a duty to be particular about public servants, and especially about the consequence upon their working lives of any action that we may take. Whether or not the Amendment is accepted it will have little effect upon our work or our lives, but the same cannot be said of prison officers. If there is total abolition we shall increase, however fractionally, the element of risk in their work. There is no agreement between those on one side and those on the other as to what that element of risk amounts to, but there seem to be three broad objections to making this exclusion from the provisions of the Bill.
The first, which has been repeated on many previous occasions, is that experience in those countries which have abolished the death penalty shows that prison officers are not murdered and that therefore no risk is involved. The second is that assaults on prison officers, even gross assaults which, in the last recorded year amounted to 18 out of a total of 159 assaults on prison officers—I hope that the hon. Lady will confirm


the figures—stopped short of murder, and accordingly in that year and in preceding years no prison officer was murdered. The third is that murderers as a class, are not particularly prone to murder for a second time. With rare exceptions that is true.
None of these points of view represents the feelings of the prison officers themselves. In paragraph 21 the Royal Commission reiterated the strong feelings of those who have the closest professional dealings with criminals—police officers and prison officers—on the deterrent value of the death penalty. It hardly seems likely that that view will have changed since the Royal Commission reported. Some prison officers are abolitionists, but many others are not, and their spokesmen have the gravest reservations about this aspect of the Bill.
I regard prison officers as most reliable witnesses. The bulk of them are dedicated men—as they have to be—who know far more about the criminal population than any of us and who are not given to agitating foolishly. In those circumstances, any reservations that they may have must be treated with the utmost respect. But the onus lies upon us to deal with the three main objections to the Amendment. First, evidence from other countries and here I wish to say a general word which may anticipate what may be said about other Amendments. The Royal Commission with quite emphatic that comparisons with other countries are not valid when considering this subject in respect of the United Kingdom. I will not quote at length, and take up the time of the Committee, but paragraph 64 begins:
An initial difficulty is that it is almost impossible to draw valid comparisons between different countries.
If hon. Members will look at Appendix 6 they will find that there is laid down in that appendix, in some detail, the reasons why the Commission found that comparisons with other countries, both in respect of prisons and other aspects of capital punishment, were not valid and were not to be relied on. Even if comparisons with other countries were valid, essential differences are created in the Bill. It would add a very small but very important category of capital murderers to the permanent care of prison officers.

There is the second objection that there has been no recently recorded case of a fatal injury inflicted on a prison officer. This seems to me a rather tenuous argument with which to resist the Amendment, partly because of what I have said about the category of prisoners which will fall under the charge of prison officers and partly also because past experience is never a reliable guide for future events. Admittedly risk to prison officers will be smaller when the strong security prison, mentioned in earlier proceedings is provided. The risk for prison officers without the deterrent of the death penalty must be relatively greater when prisoners are dispersed in 10, 15 or 20 prisons. If it is necessary to spread one or two violent criminals the system of supervision is more difficult and probably more dangerous.
Let me say at once that the strong security prison will be a contribution to the future safety of prison officers, but we do not know how soon this wing or prison is to be ready, or what conditions will prevail there. It is fair to surmise that it will be a considerable time before the prison is in operation and it will be in full working use some time after the provisions in this Bill become law if the Bill reaches the Statute Book. I must not anticipate the next Amendment on the Notice Paper, but this will not necessarily safeguard all prison officers from murder done by those who have not murdered before. One effect of removing the deterrent is to introduce a new hazard there. But I accept that the provision of the new prison will help.
What it cannot do, however secure it may be, is to change the fact that a man serving a life sentence, wherever he may be serving it, is aware that under the provisions in the Bill, if it becomes law, the murder for a second time would have an adverse but not necessarily a fatal effect upon him. None of us can tell what the effect would be. None of us can be clear in his mind"s eye about what a prisoner, with the prospect of a life sentence, must expect if he commits a second murder. We may be sure of one thing, that the life sentence will not be doubled for a second murder.
I find it difficult to see where an adequate punishment, which means an


adequate deterrent, would find its place in the conception which the Home Secretary was good enough to give us of how he sees a life sentence being served by the general run of criminals. In effect, the deterrent must be weakened and to that extent the risk to prison officers is increased. It must be. No one could argue otherwise although they might argue about the degree.
11.15 a.m.
That murderers as a class are not necessarily likely to murder again was true of murderers before 1957 when the Homicide Act became law. It is probably true of the majority of non-capital murderers. It is not true of the class which we now term capital murderers. We are not now discussing under the terms of the Bill murderers of the passionate and compassionate class for whom here will always be a degree if not of understanding at least of comprehension. The arguments for years against the death penalty have been on their behalf. Now we are discussing the predominantly dangerous group of criminals who have been regarded hitherto as capital murderers.
Of the 52 convicted capital murderers since 1957, 14 had no previous convictions; 38 had between 1 and 21. There was a total of 203 offences involved, half of them in respect of arceny—104—and about one-sixth of the total—33—in respect of breaking and entering. The point I wish to stress is that those involved were predominantly professional criminals, not the critical murderer who is so often cited in arguments about abolition, but increasingly men of violent and ruthless disposition.
I have deliberately avoided repeating any remarks made on a previous occasion in other circumstances, but I should like to recall some views on this point expressed some time ago by the late Lord Waverley, or Sir John Anderson as he thin was, who understood more about this matter than most. In a speech made in this House he said:
What I do say is that there are people—the "mad dogs' and 'wild beasts' of society—who would not on present standards be certified insane, who, if the capital sentence is abolished, ex hypothesi will be suffering the maximum penalty for violent crime, and who at any moment might break out in ungovernable passion and commit violence perhaps resulting in the death of a prison officer. This is a problem and we must face it.

Sir John went on to say that some would have to be detained indefinitely and he asked:
What is to be the attitude of the warders towards a prisoner in that position who may use violence towards them and take their lives, if he can, with impunity because he is already undergoing the severest punishment known to the law?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1004–5.]

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Am I not right in thinking—I hope that the right hon. Member will make it clear—that in the speech from which he has just quoted the late Sir John Anderson was speaking against the whole idea of the abolition of the death penalty? Is not that right?

Mr. Deedes: I am no contradicting what the hon. Gentleman says about the circumstances in which the speech was made. I am saying that the remarks made then stand as well today as they did on the day when they were made.
It may be asked—I think it an important question—why should prisoners kill at all? They kill outside prison for gain, for greed, in furtherance of theft, but why should they kill in prison? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has put forward on other occasions some views on the subject of prison conditions, and expressed the feeling that they could generate certain impulses. That is not a view which I share. I think that there is a simpler motive—the desire of desperate men to make their escape and a determination to allow nothing to thwart them in the act of escaping from prison.
We have many examples within our recollection of what a man will do to make good his escape from prison when serving a life sentence. Some of the things are almost incredible of terms of ingenuity, self-discipline and determination. Moreover, the man has nothing to lose under the terms of the Bill who may find it necessary to kill two or three while affecting his escape. There are men who would do that; very few, perhaps, but there are some.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. Member's point which interested me was that all the capital murderers since the 1957 Act, or a considerable proportion of them, were criminals with experience of prison. In fact, is not the evidence that as


prisoners they had been no more difficult to control than others, that they were not murderers when in prison?

Mr. Deedes: I cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. We have not yet had experience of committing to life imprisonment what we now describe as capital murderers, the bulk of whom are professional criminals and who, even in prison, will seek nothing more than escape. I am dealing with the consequence of that.

Mr. Paget: I thought that the right hon. Member's point was precisely the opposite, that we had experience of imprisoning these men, because they had been in prison already.

Mr. Deedes: I cannot be diverted by the hon. and learned Member's point. The argument advanced is that this new category of prisoner will constitute a fresh risk to prison officers. I cannot see, whether in 1gaol or in 20 separate gaols, the existence of these men and the risk which it would entail under the Bill could fail to have some effect on prison conditions for the majority. I believe that the consequences could be, even if it were confined to one prison, wholly inimical to the course which most hon. Members seek for penology in general. Those who want enlightened policies in penology should weigh this.
Presumably, we would all seek enlightened policies, even for the life sentence. I know that the Home Secretary does and I do not quarrel with him here. He does not desire that a man who might not hang if the Bill were made law should suffer a horrible alternative. There is a school of thought which inclines that way, which says that if we abolish hanging we must be sure that the alternative is so horrible as to provide almost an equivalent deterrent. That cannot he done and it never will be done. It would be alien to the basic principle of English law that men are sent to prison as punishment and not for punishment.
Hon. Members must decide where the lesser evil lies. They must weigh up the conditions which it may be necessary to enforce in a prison where these men may be detained and, whether or not as a consequence of these conditions, the

possibility that the actions which prison warders have to take would be inimical to the existence and the lives of others besides these men.
There is a horrible dilemma over these men who have murdered for a second time and have already suffered life imprisonment. What is the sentence to be for them—life imprisonment or even longer? Sooner or later, the question of release must arise. What is to be done about releasing these men? All the evidence which we have from the Royal Commission and anyone else is that they will rot in prison. I do not believe that any Government, given the requisite medical report, would allow any man to rot in prison. They would release him. They might release him perhaps five years after the second murder, or 15 years after the first, but they would release him.

Mr. Arthur Woodburn: Is the right hon. Member aware that where people are confined because they are mentally deranged, they spend their lives in what is, in effect, a prison and that the same argument would apply to them as would apply to the convicted murderer?

Mr. Deedes: I do not want to detain the Committee, but there is a point here. Many people believe that the conditions in which men serve life imprisonment would affect the duration of their sentence. There is a good deal of evidence which says that this is wrong. It is not harsh prison conditions, but the extinction of hope which causes men in prison to collapse after a certain period. There is more at stake here even than the safety of prison officers. There is the possible course of penology in respect of those who have served the longest sentence. I think that that is something which the Committee should weigh very carefully before they part with these Amendments.

Sir John Eden: I want very briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I think that he has described very clearly to the Committee the type of person we have in mind when considering these two Amendments. The number of capital murderers who commit a second murder must of necessity


be very small. Therefore, we are considering only a very small number of people, and I feel that, in these circumstances, it is absolutely right that the Committee should write into the Bill some form of sanction, some form of provision which will enable society as a whole to be protected against this type of individual with a particularly violent temperament.
I do not see that inclusion of the Amendment in the Bill would go against it. I know that the purpose of the Bill is primarily to abolish this form of punishment, the death penalty as such. But are the promoters of the Bill concerned primarily with the penalty for the criminal, or are they concerned to bring our procedure—to use their own words—up to date in dealing with the criminal and hoping, by some form of remedial training during the course of a man's prison sentence, to restore that man to society so that he will never again constitute a danger to society?
This is a laudable aim and it may well be that near 100 per cent. perfection can be achieved by better methods of remedial training during prison sentence. But there must always remain the risk, particularly where this type of person is concerned, that he will commit a second murder. Surely we have a duty in this Committee to consider not just how best to preserve the criminal, or, rather, to reconstitute the criminal, but how best to protect the potential victim. This is the aspect which, I am certain, every hon. Member, whatever his views on the Bill, must have in mind when discussing these Amendments. The few people who are likely to do this will, none the less, cause a grave anguish to the country if there is no other form of protection for them against these people except a further few years of imprisonment.
I do not know what the experience of other countries has been in this regard, nor do I know—I think that this is an important point which perhaps the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) could touch upon later—what special procedures he would have in mind under the Bill for dealing with the "second time around" murderer. How long would he be kept in prison? Taking up the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, does the hon. Member anticipate any special provision for dealing with a second murderer? Is that man to be

kept in prison for a particularly long period, or is there a feeling in the hon. Member's mind and in the minds of others who support this measure that what has not been achieved in the form of curing during the first term of prison sentence could, in some miraculous way, be achieved after the second murder has been committed and during the second term of prison sentence?
11.30 a.m.
If there is no hope of curing this type of criminal, then there must be a guarantee for the community that this kind of criminal will not be unleashed on it again in the future. If we are dealing not with the mentally defective but with a man of violent temperament, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford described, who has a crime record of petty larceny and of other offences and who has resorted to murder in the furtherance of his criminal activities, who alter a comparatively short spell in prison finds that he can carry on his activities where he left them off, and who again commits murder—is this the sort of person for whom it can be said that there is some remedial cure coming out of the prison system? If so, I should like to know, but I genuinely do not believe there is at the moment. Arguments may be adduced to prove that this can be done but we have no experience of it.
This is a very great risk and responsibility which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and others take on their shoulders. I am not a violent hanger or anything like that, but I am concerned to see that innocent people are protected against the type of person we are considering. I do not believe that the Bill as drafted goes anywhere near dealing with that situation. It does not face up to the fact and it does not consider it in any aspect.
I do not think that the Amendments offend the basic principles of the Bill, which is to deal with the murderer, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford described earlier—the passionate or momentary, the man who kills in the heat of the moment. But there is no provision in the Bill to deal with the violent-minded criminal, the calculating man who is offending against society and who is an enemy of all we stand for in this country, who is a danger to innocent


people and who may at the slightest moment commit this violent crime. We must have some protection against him.
The people are begging the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to write into the Bill some means for protecting them against this admittedly small minority of criminals. The Amendments are one way in which it could be done. They provide the law with the necessary sanction and the necessary weapons, if need be, to deal effectively, finally and terribly with that type of criminal so that he may never again constitute a threat to innocent persons going about their lawful business.
If the principal purpose of the Bill is to preserve the criminal, then the hon. Member will not consider the Amendment. But if in his mind—as I believe him to be—he is every bit as concerned as we are about the need to protect innocent people from becoming the victims of the habitual capital murderer, then he will accept the Amendment and other Amendments later. I hope that he will give very serious consideration to our pleas.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Whatever the people of the country may be demanding, we have had four hon. Members speaking in favour of the two Amendments which we are discussing together. It may be convenient if I indicate the attitude, or what I hope may be the attitude, to the Amendments of the supporters of the Bill. The Amendments have to be considered, just as all Amendments have to be considered, against the background of what the House of Commons has already decided by a very large, I might almost call it an overwhelming, majority.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: rose—

Mr. Silverman: I will not give way at the moment.
The House decided by an overwhelming majority to abolish the death penalty for murder. In particular, it has decided to adopt the abolition in principle of the death penalty for murder contained in the Homicide Act of eight years ago and to add to that the abolition of the exceptions made in that Act on the ground that there is hardly anybody left in the world who believes that those

exceptions are justifiable either in conscience or in law.
The House so decided, as I understand, for two main reasons, which I will mention to indicate what the background is and not for the purpose of persuading anybody. That, I think, we have done already. The first was that the death penalty is a nasty, bestial, cold-blooded ritual which is a blasphemy on civilisation.

Brigadier Clarke: So is murder.

Mr. Silverman: Of course murder is.
The second reason was that the only rational defence of society proceeding with such measures—namely, that if we have it there are fewer murders than if we do not have it—is demonstrably untrue. It is against that background that the Amendments have to be considered, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) quite clearly faced up to them. He invited me to say that these murders were of such a nature—either so bad or so deterrable—that they formed a special class and that we could adopt these Amendments without doing violence to the principle to which we have to give effect and which the House adopted by a very large majority when it gave a Second Reading to the Bill.
I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to the arguments if I make a rather short answer. We are being asked to say that murderers as a class—I will deal with the sub-divisions of the class in a moment—are more violent and more anti-social than other criminals. We ought to take some comfort from the fact that in the great majority of cases this is demonstrably not true. Most murders are not committed by professional criminals. Most murders are not committed by people with any previous record of crime at all, still less of violent crime. We are dealing with a group of people, as a class, who, individual by individual, have found themselves in circumstances which have compelled them to commit the greatest crime of all but who are in other respects people who have lived law abiding lives.
Some reference was made to the experience of prison officers. Prison officers all agree that the convicted murderer—I will deal with the exceptional group of them in a moment-


makes a very good prisoner, not a violent prisoner, not a difficult prisoner and not a prisoner who is difficult to handle. I am not now offering only a personal opinion, although I perhaps share it. I draw the attention of hon. Members who are dealing with the argument seriously and are not merely indulging in pathological emotion in favour of the death penalty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are people like that, let us face it—to paragraph 617 of the Report of the Royal Commmission.
In case some hon. Members do not have a copy of the Report with them I will read from that paragraph, which stated:
… the evidence given to us in the countries we visited, and the information we received from others, were uniformly to the effect that murderers are no more likely than any other prisoners to commit acts of violence against officers or fellow prisoners or to attempt to escape; on the contrary it would appear that in all countries murderers are, on the whole, better behaved than most prisoners. It must be remembered too that prisoners serving life sentences have a special incentive to good behaviour, since the time they have in fact to serve depends so largely on it.
There may be hon. Members who are doubtful—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, and since he used the words "there may be hon. Members who are doubtful", perhaps I should point out to him that a great deal has been said in the past week or so about the difficulties facing many hon. Members in being able to be present for the Committee stage of the Bill. There are a great many hon. Members, certainly on this side, who would like to be present to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. but who are unable to be here, as will be seen from the rather sparse attendance.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know the purpose of that intervention, unless it was designed to defy the advice given to us by the Chair not to indulge in frivolous interventions. However, it might answer the hon. Gentleman if I say that my remarks are addressed not only to those hon. Members who happen to be within earshot, but to all hon. Members and to everyone who is interested in the argument.
As I was saying, there may be some who are doubtful whether what I have

read from the Royal Commission's Report is in accord with their feelings or experience. I invite them to remember that the Royal Commission was the most powerful of its kind ever appointed in our history. It spent four or five years making the most exhaustive inquiries into all these matters, not merely in this country but in other countries in Western Europe and in the United States—in countries which had recently abolished the death penalty, in countries which had abolished it long ago and in countries which had retained it. In all of them that was uniformly the effect reported to the Royal Commission. I say, therefore, that that paragraph, which was unequivocally the uniform experience of all countries in Western Europe and America, must at least carry great authority.

Sir John Hobson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think it wrong if 1 draw his attention to the fact that the Royal Commission also reported that although the greater number of prisoners serving sentences for murder would be unlikely to give any exceptional trouble, it also drew attention to the fact that
… there would no doubt be some increase in that difficult class of prisoners who have not only committed murder but have been of criminal habits or tendencies, or are of a generally violent and insubordinate or sullen and morose temperament.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with both classes and not generalise on the one.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Silverman: Those passages were put in in a totally different connection and were dealing with a totally different point. I am dealing with paragraph 617, which is perfectly clear and which is not subject to any doubt at all, in which the Royal Commission stated that
…murderers are no more likely than any other prisoners to commit acts of violence against officers or fellow prisoners or to attempt to escape …".
It went on to say:
…on the contrary, it would appear that … murderers are, on the whole, better behaved than most prisoners …".
I suggest that that was an authoritative opinion which should carry conviction to anyone who is really looking at this question with an open mind. It therefore disposes of a great deal of the


argument advanced this morning. However, it does not dispose of a part of it, with which I will now deal.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I respect the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing with this matter. If these murderers have made one mistake, but are really decent men and will not do it again, what is wrong with including this sort of Amendment in the Bill, since apparently it would not apply?

Mr. Silverman: I will continue with my argument and if the hon. Gentleman will make a serious effort I am sure that he will find himself able to follow it.
I said that in the opinion of the Royal Commission, an authoritative opinion which should carry weight to any open-minded reader of its Report, to the great majority of murderers the arguments which have been addressed to the Committee this morning have no relevance at all.
I come to that portion of the argument to which the paragraph I quoted might possibly not apply. It may be said that although it is true of the great majority of convicted murderers it is not true of all of them; that some of them are people of violent temperament, certainly with one murder behind them, possibly with a record of violence and that whatever may be said about the great bulk of convicted murderers it will not apply to those in this category, minority though it is admitted to be.
Perhaps it does not, but this division of prisoners between the more or less well behaved and the constitutionally violent does not apply only to convicted murderers. There are many prisoners who have never been convicted of murder, have never been guilty of murder, but who have been repeatedly convicted of violence. What the Amendment proposes to do is to make a distinction between them and murderers, almost all of whom have never committed acts of violence. If the Amendment were carried a man who had spent 30 or 40 years in violent crime without committing murder and who then committed murder in a prison or later in his life would not be guilty of any capital crime.

Sir Charles Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in comparatively recent years there have been two cases of murderers who have been let out on licence—presumably, therefore, having been found to be sane by the medical authorities—and who, in both cases, committed a second murder? One of them was subsequently hanged and the other sent back to prison. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise, therefore, that there have been cases of this type in recent years.

Mr. Silverman: With very great respect to the hon. Member—I am sure that it must be my fault—he does not seem to have been following the argument. What I am saying, dealing with murderers who are not well behaved, murderers with a violent record—and it is those whom the hon. Member has in mind—is that there are a great many other prisoners who are not convicted murderers but who are as violent, if not more violent, with a much worse record of violence, and that the effect of these Amendments would be to relieve those people of a capital sentence merely because they had not committed murder before, although they were much more violent and had a worse record of violence than many murderers. This cannot be right.
This is only another instance of what the Royal Commission found, which was that if we try to make exceptions we land ourselves in more anomalies than we escape from. That is why the Royal Commission unanimously recommended that we should not persist in any attempt at discrimination at all—

Sir J. Eden: Surely, the man in the second category to which the hon. Member was referring—the man of criminal record who was not a murderer previously and who murdered in prison—would be dealt with, as it were, under another Amendment on the Notice Paper. All we are dealing with here is the convicted murderer who murders again, and this must surely be a particular and special category.

Mr. Silverman: What I am very laboriously—and at greater length than I had intended—seeking to persuade the Committee of is that we cannot make the distinction recommended by these Amendments in the case of convicted


murderers qua convicted murderers, because the great majority of them in prison are well-behaved prisoners. If we are to make the discrimination at all—and I can see some kind of plausible argument in favour of it—we should not make it between convicted murderers and those convicted of other crimes. We should make it, if at all, as between prisoners with a long record of violence and people convicted of crime not involving violence. That would be a rational discrimination, and an arguable one, whereas the Amendments are not rational or arguable at all.
The further point I make—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: While we are on the point of the behaviour of these people in prison, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, by and large, when we have the thug type of murderer, the man who has battered a defenceless person to death, it is in the nature of the beast, when in prison, to behave as well as possible, because he is nearly always a coward—

Mr. Silverman: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Lagden: The position is that he is extremely likely to behave excellently in prison, but the moment he reverts to the outside world it is more than likely that his habits will not in any way have been cured, and that he will again pick up his way of life, and his brutality, where he left off.

Mr. Silverman: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his rather unexpected support of the proposition that murderers are well-behaved prisoners. I am glad to have converted at least one hon. Member during the course of the morning.
I say, at the moment, that the proper discrimination, and it applies just as much to the violent criminal who is not a murderer as to the murderer, can be understood, but that it would be monstrous to say that in the case of such a criminal we must not take precautions to prevent him until after he has killed someone. This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary rather than for me, but I should have thought that the case was for having a special type of prison for a violent criminal—and this has nothing whatever

to do with keeping or not keeping the death penalty for murder.
When we discussed this very thing in the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, told that Committee, as I hope she will tell this Committee, of Home Office plans for special prisons in respect of violent prisoners, but it would be stupid to say that prisons should be used only for convicted murderers or only for violent murderers. In the case of violent criminals we are dealing with a category that is not the same as the category of murderer, and it has to be dealt with specially in that way.
I therefore end up—and I have been very much longer than I intended to be, but I have given way once or twice—by saying that I am not ready to accept the arguments so eloquently pressed upon me that this was a special case, and that we could make this exception without doing violence to the decision of the House of Commons to abolish the death penalty without discrimination and without exceptions. I hope that the Committee will reject both arguments.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Frankly, I am disappointed with the line taken by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) with regard to these Amendments. As a very experienced Parliamentarian, I thought that I detected this morning a slight touchiness on his part during the speeches of my hon. Friends. If I may say so, I welcome the opportunity of making even a modest contribution from the Floor of this Chamber, and it is very significant to look around. I saw the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary look in—they must have been ashamed of the fact that there are, probably, three times as many hon. Members on this side of the Committee as on that. After all the hullabaloo a week or two ago, one would have thought that the Government benches would have been filled—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]
Furthermore, one would have thought that those right hon. and hon. Members who would have been most inconvenienced would have been the lawyers, but on these benches they have turned up in considerable numbers, which shows the importance they attach—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. I think that the hon. Member should turn his attention to the Amendment.

Mr. Webster: I am sure that it is not in order, Sir Samuel, for me to call a Count, but there are only 12 hon. Members opposite.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I hope that a Count will not be called, Sir Samuel, because I think that the requisite numbers of Members are here, and I hope that they will continue to display interest in the various Clauses.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to hanging as a cold-blooded ritual and a blasphemy. Of course, it is—no one likes it—but I would have been more convinced if the hon. Member had referred to murder in the same terms. This is always put forward as a one-sided argument, which is most unfortunate.
What I want to emphasise is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) referred to, and that is the question of prison officers. As the Minister of State and the Home Secretary know, there is a shortage of these officers, and recruitment is difficult. We want to give every encouragement we can to people to man the service. It must be the first priority in looking after these unfortunate people to see that the prisons are properly manned.
Very few prison officers have been murdered in recent years, but many have been pretty badly "clobbered", and nearly murdered—it is largely a question of degree. When Wilson escaped from Birmingham Gaol early last autumn, I am pretty certain that his accomplices would have committed murder had they felt it to be necessary. Prison officers are running a grave risk. Their job does not involve serving just a short period overseas in some small theatre of war. It happens to them every day of their lives. This factor must be taken into account.
12 noon.
I do not think that Parliament is in line with public thinking on these matters, certainly not in my constituency. Fortunately, in my constituency I am allowed to think for myself and intend to do so. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), I am

not violent about these matters. If an argument could be advanced to assure me that there was an effective deterrent to take the place of hanging, I would be for it. But I have not heard that argument yet.
I think that it is generally agreed on both sides of the Committee that, in this country at any rate, we would never entertain the notion of prisoners remaining inside for 25 or 30 years, or their whole life. It is questionable whether the men who are now serving their 30 year sentence for the train robbery will have to serve 30 years. They undoubtedly will not.
We are dealing with the few. There are not many cases involved, but surely every life is worth while. Hon. Members in favour of abolition have often said that there may be one man wrongly hanged. I do not want to see one prison officer murdered. I think that the arguments apply equally. The hon. Lady the Minister of State has in the past referred to special security prisons. This is a move in the right direction, where the most difficult prisoners will be confined, but the risk there will undoubtedly be greater for those in charge of those prisons. There cannot be one prison officer for every prisoner. There will be a great element of risk. The Committee would like to be told a little more about it before we proceed with it.
To keep prisoners in gaol all their lives would be soul destroying. It has been said that after 15 years the individual gives up hope. I hope personally that, as these discussions continue, we shall be told more about the alternative deterrent to hanging. I hope that we shall see more hon. Members opposite than there are at present.

Mr. John Peyton: I want to say at the outset what my position is in this, to me, most horrible of controversies. I have for nearly 10 years now been an abolitionist who regards increasingly the filthy ceremonial of the death penalty with utter and complete abhorrence. That, however, is not the end of the matter. When his enthusiasm and the strength of his convictions for the Bill of which he is sponsor lead the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) into a contempt for the arguments put against the Bill—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am very sorry if anything I said gave any justification for what has just been said. I respect the sincerity of those who want to retain the death penalty as much as I respect the sincerity of those of us who do not, and I do not regard their arguments with contempt. I made a very, very long speech in which I endeavoured to examine patiently and, I hope, courteously every one of the arguments which has been offered to us this morning. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who says he is an abolitionist, will not say that kind of thing again.

Mr. Peyton: Just before the hon. Gentleman sits he puts a sting in the tail of all his remarks by saying that I say I am an abolitionist. Does he mean to say that there is some question of my sincerity here or not?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: No. On the contrary, I pay the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman's sincerity. What I hoped hat he would not say again was that I treated either his arguments or those of the retentionists with contempt. I do not.

Mr. Peyton: Very well. I would gladly give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking never to repeat that, so long as he will give me and the Committee the undertaking that he will not make a habit of referring to the pathological emotions shown by those who are addicted to what I personally feel is a filthy thing.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I expressly said that that remark applied only to a very small number. The hon. Member, who has as much experience of this controversy as I have, knows full well that it applies to some.

Mr. Peyton: Of course. I would readily concede that there are those on both sides of any controversy whose views are extreme and do not command sympathy. However, the worse way for the hon. Gentleman to advance his cause is to bandy about such accusations. Better by far to ignore those who make themselves ridiculous by taking up extreme positions.
Let me say how much I welcome the return of the Committee stage of the Bill to the Floor of the House of Commons. I believe that this is far too

deep-founded a controversy, a controversy in which many people take part—some people may feel without understanding the issues involved—to be settled anywhere except on the Floor of the House of Commons.
These Amendments are part of the basic dilemma. I am sure that the Home Secretary is, above all, conscious of the importance in the public mind of these two aspects of the problem. In 1957, following the previous decision of Parliament that the death penalty should be abolished, the previous Government were forced into the arena and they produced a Measure which was admittedly and confessedly a temporary compromise. It was a Bill which afforded a measure of progress to those who, like myself, believe in and support abolition. To those, on the other hand, who had genuine, sincere and deep-felt anxieties, it contained some assurance that the move towards abolition was not to be as headlong and as precipitate as they feared.
Admittedly, that Measure was temporary. I do not believe that anyone thought that it could stand for long. I have been profoundly impressed by what I understand to be the opinion of many of Her Majesty's judges that this compromise Measure has put them in an almost impossible position. The kernel of my point this morning is that I do not believe that it will be possible for the House of Commons to say goodbye to this controversy by means of a two-page Private Member's Bill. I believe that this Government will be forced out into the open, just as the last Government were. This is part of our whole criminal code. It is an important part. What are we to do about this fearful problem of violence?
I do not accept for one moment the view that has been expressed by some of my hon. Friends that what can be said of the death penalty and of capital punishment can also be said of murder. One of the horrible features of capital punishment is the ceremonial, the formality, that must inevitably be attached to it. It is the State acting in pomp and ceremony of the most horrid kind.
Having said that, we are in this dilemma as regards policemen and prison officers, at a time when law and order


are seriously threatened. The Government cannot say, like Pontius Pilate, "This has nothing to do with us. We wash our hands of it". If I may say so, I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, both for his ability for his courage and honesty. I hope that he will allow those undoubted qualities to force him to come into the open in this controversy and take the constructive lead which must be his.
I do not regard the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that this discussion takes place against the background of a large majority decision of the House of Commons as necessarily final. I voted for the Bill, but I do not accept that decisions of the House automatically become part of Holy Writ which cannot be reversed. There are those like myself, sometimes stupid, perhaps, sometimes misled, sometimes not understanding the issues, sometimes not clear in their minds, who find themselves genuinely torn here. This is why I say and have always said that I hate and detest this controversy. I should be miserably unhappy to find myself voting for what I detest.
On the other hand, although, of course, one cannot talk about numbers or count heads or votes—such considerations are contemptible when on an issue like this—one would be doing less than one's duty if one did not advert to the fact that many people are greatly disturbed. Many of my constituents are deeply convinced that I am wrong. Therefore, while I do not agree with them. while I should hate to vote for something which I detest, I am nevertheless impressed by their strength of view and their anxiety, and I should be doing less than my duty if I did not notice these things.
I make this further point about the Amendments. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that most murderers are not professional criminals. I accept that, but, surely, the murderers contemplated by the Amendments are the most likely to be professional criminals. Therefore, I do not think that that argument can weigh very heavily against the Amendments.
Now, the question of the alternative and a life of personal destruction in prison. I accept that, after 15 years or so—I take this to be the evidence—a man

starts seriously to deteriorate. I have myself been in prison, though not under quite the same conditions as we are discussing now. I have been behind barbed wire for five years, and I know a little of what it means, of what captivity itself involves. The Government cannot run away from this dilemma. If they intend to abolish capital punishment, they cannot run away on the loose and designedly comforting assurance that a life sentence can mean life. They must not say that any more because it is not what it means if, at the same time, one knows that a man condemned to a life sentence is released, probably, after about nine years.
I apologise for having detained the Committee, but this is a controversy which I find detestable. It is a dilemma incredibly difficult to resolve. But I feel with increasing conviction that it cannot be resolved by means of a two-page Bill which, because of the machinery of this House, cannot contain the alternative provisions which are the necessary concomitant of what would be an important move forward in our criminal procedure.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I am in almost the same position as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Like him, I abominate the whole idea of capital punishment, and I voted happily and readily for the Second Reading of the Bill. Nevertheless, I feel that, while there may be some sense in the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), there are extremists on this side of the Committee who find it impossible to view this matter except with a degree of prejudice and bias in favour of retaining capital punishment at all costs, it is equally fair to say that on his side of the Committee there are abolitionists who are at least equally intolerant. Somehow, we have to find a balance between the two extremes.
I came into the Committee this morning with a completely open mind on these two Amendments. I have listened to the arguments advanced from both sides, and I wish that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had not left his place at the moment, because I am sure that he would wish to intervene on some of the points I am about to make. Having listened carefully to his argument, I feel that it is totally unconvincing. If, as he suggests, the number of


murderers who, upon release, commit the crime for a second time is so small, how is it possible for him to argue against the inclusion of these Amendments?
A further point, which has not been advanced so far, I think, but which is, perhaps, as important as any other, is that for many of us who desire anxiously to see the total abolition of capital punishment as quickly as possible one of the prevailing reasons is the finality of capital punishment. Many of us have been disturbed about possible doubts and miscarriages of justice which have occurred. The thought that a man may hang when he is innocent has gravely worried many people including, I suggest, even the most ardent retentionists.
One of the great advantages of the Amendment is that it removes that possibility. If a man has already been convicted of murder, has served a term of life imprisonment, is released and then commits a second murder and is convicted, it is almost beyond possibility of doubt that he must be guilty on at least one, if not both, of those charges. For this reason, the Amendment has great merit. It removes the real possibility of an innocent man being hanged.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The purpose of the Amendments is not an act of revenge by society on an individual who commits murder. The purpose is to provide a deterrent to stop a murderer committing the crime a second time.

Mr. Bessell: I entirely accept that, but it does not necessarily invalidate the argument which I have advanced. I recognise that that is the purpose behind the Amendment. It is a fair point and should commend itself to the Committee.
We are liable, surely, to think of ourselves sometimes as men like gods. Have we the right to make this decision to abolish capital punishment completely, absolutely and irrevocably, when no party, and I suggest no Member, has a mandate from the electorate to do this? How many hon. Members included in their election addresses and speeches undertakings that if elected they would do everything in their power to see the abolition of the death penalty enacted by the new Parliament? I do not suggest that we have to be bound by the things which we have not said during elections. I believe that we are here

to represent the country as best we are able and to arrive at our judgment in the light of the circumstances as they arise. But this is an old controversy, and to that extent—

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if it is an old controversy, the electorate was well aware that if a Labour Government were elected at the last election the question of the abolition of capital punishment would arise? Does he not agree that those of us who have supported the abolition of capital punishment all through have informed our electorate about this and that our attitude to capital punishment was well known to the electors?

Mr. Bessell: I accept part of that argument. Like the hon. Member, I have always made it clear to the electorate in my constituency that I was in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: May I answer the point raised and still try to remain in order? If, as has been suggested, the country knew that a Labour Government would introduce a Bill for the abolition of the death penalty, why was this not included in the Labour Party's election manifesto and in the speeches made on television and the radio by the leaders of the party? But I see that I am in danger of being out of order, and I will leave that point.
I came into the Committee with a completely open mind on this subject. I wanted, I think, to vote against the two Amendments. But having listened to the arguments which have been advanced, nothing I have heard from the other side of the Committee has convinced me or, I am sure, anyone else that there is any reason why these Amendments should not be included in the Bill. If they are included in the Bill, we shall have at least have gone some way to meet the very real anxiety which many people feel throughout the country as the result of the introduction of a Bill which was totally unexpected by the majority of people and which I do not believe the Government or any of us have a mandate to put on the Statute Book without some Amendment.

Miss Bacon: This has been a very good debate. At times it has wandered rather wide of the Amendments and at times it has been almost a Second Reading debate. One difficulty which we experienced in Committee upstairs, and which it appears that we shall experience on the Floor of the House, is that Amendments are so arranged, through no fault of those who have tabled them, that almost the whole Committee will want us to give the answers to later Amendments before a decision is taken on the first Amendment. The later Amendments deal with what is the alternative to the death penalty. In Committee upstairs many hon. Members asked the Government what would be the alternative, but we were prohibited from going into that until we had reached later Amendments.
Perhaps I may say, while remaining in order, that one thing which is usually overlooked about a life sentence is that even when the person comes out of prison he is subject to recall throughout the whole of his life, even if he does not commit another offence, if he acts in such a way that it looks as if he might commit an offence.

Mr. Webster: How often has this recall been carried out in the last five years?

Miss Bacon: I could not say how often, but I can quote a case which has happened while I have been at the Home Office. This was not a murder, but a man found guilty of rape and given a life sentence. He was out on licence. He would not comply with the terms of his licence and he was brought back into prison. He is in prison at present. I cannot tell the House exactly how many cases there are, but I can assure the House that it does happen.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When a prisoner comes out of prison, on licence, perhaps with two or three years' sentence to run, when that licence expires, is he still liable to be sent back again? I thought that a man was clear when his licence had expired.

Miss Bacon: I understand that if it is a life sentence, as distinct from a fixed number of years, the person is subject to recall throughout the whole of his life. It may be that with a fixed long sentence

the man is on licence for a certain number of years, but I understand that a life-sentence prisoner is liable to recall for the rest of his life.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I have a constituent who received a life sentence. He served seven or eight years. I learned this from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor at the Home Office. I understood that after three years on licence he was completely in the clear.

Miss Bacon: That is only if a Royal prerogative is exercised. I am informed that a life sentence means that when a person is let out of prison he is on recall for the rest of his life.

Sir J. Hobson: It is the position, is it not, that the Home Secretary can impose conditions? Of course, those conditions may expire after a period. But even though the conditions had expired the man would still be liable to recall over the whole of his life.

Miss Bacon: That is exactly the position.
This is a very serious matter which we are discussing because it involves life and death. It is sometimes said of those of us who are abolitionists that we care only about the criminal and not about the victim. That is a very unworthy way of stating the views of the abolitionists. We care very much about the victim.
We are discussing two Amendments together. The first is that the death penalty should be retained for any second murder whether or not that murder takes place inside a prison or after the person has left prison. The second Amendment is to retain the death penalty for a second murder committed while in prison by a person serving a life sentence for murder.
12.30 p.m.
The Homicide Act, 1957, made several exceptions to the abolition of the death penalty. These were murder in the course or furtherance of theft, murder by shooting or causing an explosion, murder of a police officer and, in the case of a person serving a prison sentence at the time, murder of a prison officer while in the execution of his duty. It also retained the death penalty for a second or double murder.
When we voted on Second Reading of the Bill, there was an overwhelming


majority in favour of abolition. I do not want to say that these two Amendments should be rejected solely because they are the first of a series, but it is a point that I must make. They are, in fact, the first of a series of Amendments—and if all those Amendments were accepted we would be back to the same position as the Homicide Act, 1957, established. We would have capital
murder and non-capital murder. I know that many hon. Members opposite would like that to be so, but I understood that, on Second Reading, the House voted against that position.

Mr. Peyton: I think that the hon. Lady is missing the point. The majority of the House voted for abolition of the death penalty—myself among them. But we hoped that, at a later stage, it would be possible for the Government to bring forward alternative arrangements which might be satisfactory from the point of view of security and the safety of the public. It appears that this is not to happen. If it does not happen, if the Government do nothing, then these Amendments become issues which even abolitionists must at least seriously consider.

Miss Bacon: Again, I must point out that we are in the difficulty that the Amendments dealing with what is to be the alternative to the death penalty come later on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Peyton: Will the hon. Lady give way again? I do not wish to be a nuisance to her or to the Committee, but this is an important matter. I hope that, in dealing with these Amendments, she will not allow her argument to become isolated. If the Government have something useful and constructive to say about proposals which may come later in our consideration of the Bill, it would be quite wrong to think that they would have no effect or would be out of order if they were mentioned in considering these Amendments.

Miss Bacon: It was precisely on this point that, at the last meeting of the Standing Committee, I was ruled out of order. I will do my best to satisfy the hon. Gentleman without being ruled out of order, but I do not promise him that I will be able to do so.

The Chairman: Order. I warn the hon. Lady that she had better be very careful.

Miss Bacon: As I was saying before the interruptions began, the 1957 Act had a distinction between capital and non-capital murders. I was under the impression that most of those who voted for abolition during our Second Reading proceedings on the Bill did so because they wanted to get away from that distinction and all the anomalies and difficulties that it created.
Some figures have been given already today. Many figures were quoted during the Standing Committee proceedings. There are figures of murder in this country which are sometimes used to support both arguments. For example, I quote the fact that there are few second murders. Indeed, in this century we know of only three cases where an already convicted murderer has murdered again.
First, there was Walter Rowlands, convicted of the murder of his two-year-old child and reprieved in May, 1934. He was convicted again on 16th December, 1946, of murdering a woman with whom he had been associating and he was executed.

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend is, of course, aware that, in that case, the murder for which Rowlands was hanged was confessed to by a man called Ware and that Rowlands was almost certainly innocent.

Miss Bacon: I do not want to be led off on to that case. I merely want to quote the number of cases known in which a second murder has been committed as far as the courts are concerned.
Secondly, there was Christopher Simcox, convicted on 7th July, 1948, released on licence in 1959 and convicted again in 1964, when he was reprieved. Thirdly, there was Peter Dunford, convicted on 9th December, 1963, of murdering another youth and convicted on 17th December last of murdering a prisoner in Wakefield Prison and reprieved. This latter murder is the only one we have on record of a murder in prison and I would emphasise that it took place last July before the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: There was also the case of Donald Hume, who was originally charged with the murder of a man called Setty but was convicted of being an accessory after the fact. He subsequently confessed to the murder of Setty, however, and then he committed murder in Switzerland, where he is now serving imprisonment for life.

Miss Bacon: I was quoting murders committed in this country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that Hume committed murder for the second time in Switzerland. There are only three cases in this country that we know of.
I am quite prepared to admit that figures like this can be used both ways, as we have found. Those who are abolitionists can say, "There are so few of these" while, on the other hand, retentionists can say, "There are few of them, but that is because the death penalty existed at the time". That is what we have been up against in considering all the figures quoted during the Committee stage. I agreed very much with the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) who, at one stage in our proceedings upstairs, said that this was not so much a question of statistics, but of judgment.

Sir C. Taylor: rose—

Miss Bacon: I have given way quite a lot to interruptions. I would like to get on with my speech.

Sir C. Taylor: I want to know, as a matter of practical policy, what happens to a man who commits a second murder. Is he put back in prison only to be released again after a while? Do we let him out to commit a third murder?

Miss Bacon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is asking what has happened in the past or what would happen in future under the Bill. But if it is the latter case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make his contribution when we come to later Amendments.
Perhaps I may return now to the Amendments we are discussing. First, there is the case of a person who has been released and who murders again

after leaving prison. This man will already have served a number of years for the first murder—perhaps a longer period than has been served in the past. In so far as the murder is premeditated, or in so far as such a person knowingly puts himself in a position where he may commit murder, then, surely, a man who has left prison after having done a long sentence would be one of the last people to commit another murder, with the chance of going back into prison for a further long sentence. He will already have done a very long spell in prison.
We are told by the retentionists that the death penalty is a deterrent. I know that they honestly believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, but will they honestly say that there is no other? Is not a further long period in prison for a man who has already done a long period in prison a great deterrent against committing a second murder?

Mr. Arthur Tiley: This is one of the things which upsets some of us who are abolitionists. A man may get out of prison, not after having served a long sentence but through having escaped because of laxity in the prison. He may not have had the deterrent of long imprisonment. This is one of the disturbing factors which confuse some of us.

Miss Bacon: That interruption was unnecessary, because I am about to come to that.
I do not believe that the death penalty is the only deterrent to a man of this kind. Another long sentence in prison, probably much longer than the first which he had had already served, would be a great deterrent to a man of that kind.
What of the man who murders in prison? I have some figures of the number of murders in prison in this century. In England and Wales, since 1900, two borstal boys have been convicted of the murder of a prison officer. In one case the officer was a matron at a borstal institution. No prisoner has been convicted of the murder of a prison officer since 1900, while six prisoners have been convicted of the murder of a prisoner, three of the same murder, that at Wakefield last year. In the Wakefield case, only one was serving a sentence for murder and none of the others was serving a fixed


sentence of seven years or more. Therefore, we can see that in this century the number of second murders and of murders in prison has been extremely small.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Has the hon. Lady any evidence of the sort of case of a person who has committed several murder before conviction? Have they ever been sent to prison and what happens to them afterwards? Do they commit further murders?

Miss Bacon: I do not have those figures with me, but they are not relevant to the Amendments which we are now discussing and which deal with those who have already been convicted of one murder.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke of prison officers and public servants and said what we all recognise—that prison officers have a very dangerous and unpleasant job to do. One thing which has been encouraging in our prisons in the last few years has been the changing role of the prison officer in our modern penal system. He is no longer just a turnkey who goes around the prison. Over the last few years, prison officers have increasingly become the friends and counsellors of the prisoners, and I know from my recent meeting with the prison officers that they are most anxious to extend that work.
Unfortunately, however, prison officers have to look after a great many vicious and brutal prisoners and these vicious and brutal prisoners are not all murderers. Even if these Amendments were carried, there would still be many vicious and brutal prisoners who had committed vicious and brutal acts falling short of murder, and the prison officers would still have to look after them. If these prisoners were escaping, whether they were murderers or not, they would still use anything to hand, whether there was a death penalty or not, for most of us realise that murder is not rational.
12.45 p.m.
The new prison at Albany, on the Isle of Wight, has been mentioned. It is to be a new kind of security prison which would take long-term prisoners, not only murderers but other specially dangerous prisoners. We hope that inside it will be such as to enable prisoners who have to serve very long periods in prison to

lead as viable a life as possible, but we shall have a much greater ratio of staff to prisoners, because the staff will be dealing with the worst sort of prisoner.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me when this prison would be open. It will not be for some time yet. Unfortunately, when building prisons we are always faced with the objections of the people who live in the area, and it always takes us at the Home Office much longer to build prisons than it takes the Ministry of Education to build schools or the Ministry of Health to build hospitals, because while people may like hospitals or schools near to them, they do not like prisons, or approved schools, or borstals, or remand centres. I am pleased to say that in this instance there will not be any official objections to the prison being built on the Isle of Wight, but it will take some time, perhaps two or three years, to build this prison.
In the meantime, the extra number of people who will have to be looked after will be very small. From 1958 to 1963, only 25 people were executed, on average just over four a year, so that even if we have to have, as we shall, interim arrangements before the prison at Albany is built, there will not be any great difficulty.
Figures can be used both ways, by the abolitionists to bolster up their case, or by the retentionists to bolster up theirs. What has happened in other countries where they have had abolition for some years has been mentioned. The figures I have relate to Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, countries whose outlook is very much like ours and who provide better examples than Spain.
In Sweden, there have been no murders by life or long-term prisoners since 1921. In Denmark, there have been no murders by life or long-term prisoners since 1900. In Norway, since 1900, there has been one murder of a prison officer by a prisoner serving a sentence for murder and the prisoner committed suicide immediately afterwards, and there has been one murder by a prisoner not serving a sentence for murder, the victim being someone other than a prison officer. In the Netherlands, there has been one murder by a convicted murderer of a fellow prisoner since 1870.
Surely it will not be argued that the position in this country will be so very


much different from those countries of Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Surely it will not be argued that what has happened in Scandinavia is not the kind of thing which will happen here.

Mr. Deedes: That is exactly what the Royal Commission did argue.

Miss Bacon: I am not aware of that passage. This is what has happened in other countries and I would have thought that the outlook of the people of Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands was the same as the outlook of the people of this country.
We have the death penalty for certain types of murder, but let us see what the trend is in other countries. According to The Guardian of 22nd March, many of the States in the United States are getting rid of the death penalty. This report, headed "U.S. trend against death penalty", says:
Two more American States have taken steps to abolish the death penalty. It has been abolished in 11 of the 50 States and before the end of the year 12 more are expected to consider taking similar action.
Surely at a time when all over the world countries, including America, as I have just shown, are taking steps to abolish the death penalty, we will not argue that it is necessary in Great Britain.
I hope that these two Amendments will not be carried, although everyone on this side of the Committee and, as I know, on the benches opposite, have a free vote. I believe that the majority of people who voted on Second Reading for the abolition of the death penalty and for the Bill did so because they felt, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) felt, that they wanted to get rid of this blot on our civilisation and to get rid once and for all of the death penalty and everything to do with execution.

Mr. Peyton: Although the hon. Lady referred, in the closing sentence of her speech, to my views, she has done absolutely nothing to answer them.

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Deedes: On a point of order, Apropos of what has been said about the order of Amendments, may I say that we will perhaps find ourselves in some

difficulty in that the Amendment which is likely to be called next, Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except a person who murders a police officer acting in the execution of his duty"—
will, as it were, fall between these two Amendments and Amendment No.3, in page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except a prisoner who murders a prison officer acting in the execution of his duty".
I wonder whether you, Dr. King, would feel able to consider the possibility of making Amendment No.3 Amendment No.2—in other words, of reversing the order—so that we may take the whole subject together. I cannot help feeling that that would be for the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Further to that point of order. As these Amendments stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends, may I say that I subscribe to the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). If the Chair thought it right—and, as I understand, it is entirely a matter for the Chair and nobody else—I should be content if the question of the murder of a prison officer was not dealt with before the question of the murder of a police officer. If the Chair thought that both matters should be discussed together with two separate divisions and that we should have a wide-ranging debate covering both Amendments, I should have no objection to it.

Mr. Deedes: indicated assent.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I notice from my right hon. Friend's nod that he subscribes to the view which I have just expressed. Either way I would find completely agreeable.

The Chairman: This is rather difficult. I wish that both the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) had considered this matter before the Amendments were placed on the Notice Paper. The Amendments appear in this order because it was the order in which they were received. The Chair is bound strictly to take Amendments as they appear on the, Notice Paper.
The only thing that I can suggest is that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet takes his Amendment off the Notice Paper and then puts it on again. Otherwise, I cannot move outside the pattern which the Notice Paper lays down for me.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will leave the matter as it stands. I think that both questions are very closely linked. We can discuss the Amendments in either order. However, this matter has not yet been reached.

Mr. Paget: I realise the difficulty of changing the order of the Notice Paper, but I understood the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) to say that he would be perfectly happy if the two Amendments were discussed together. In that case, Amendments Nos.2 and 3 would be discussed with Amendment No.7, in page 1, line 5, after "murder", insert:
except for any murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty or of a person assisting a police officer so acting".

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Paget: Amendment No.7 would be discussed with Amendment No.2. So it would be a case of discussing Amendments Nos.2, 3 and 7 together. There would not be any objection to that, would there?

The Chairman: We will only confuse things if at this stage we suddenly make arrangements for a wide ranging debate.

Sir J. Hobson: Further to the point of order. I hope that no decision will be taken at this stage to discuss Amendments Nos.2 and 3 together. I should have thought that there were substantial differences in them and that it would be of advantage to discuss them separately. I should like to register that view so that it may be considered, although I realise that it is entirely a matter for the Chair to decide.

The Chairman: I think that I have made it clear where the Chair stands.

Sir Stephen McAdden: Serious consideration of the Amendments which we are discussing becomes increasingly difficult if the only rebuttal of them of any substance by the

hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and the Government is to be reliance on the fact that the House some time ago took a majority decision to abolish capital punishment. If that is to be the sole argument advanced, it is worth considering that the reflection of public opinion in the House and in that vote was rather different from what one would expect.
I am not surprised that some of my hon. Friends are in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. It is very natural that some Members on this side should reflect that point of view, as it is held by some people in the country. I am not surprised, either, that a larger number of my hon. Friends hold different views, because that, also, is a reflection of public opinion.
What I find completely incomprehensible on an allegedly Private Member's Bill is that all hon. Members opposite should be in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, with the exception, perhaps, of one. It seems to me completely incomprehensible that that is a true reflection of public opinion. While I appreciate that we are not here as delegates and that we do not necessarily have to reflect public opinion, I find this a little surprising; I will not put it higher.
It has been said that the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, the promoter of the Bill, was rather contemptuous of those who held views different from his own. Nevertheless, in his speech, he made the point that in his experience and in that of the Royal Commission murderers were, on the whole, very well behaved once they were caught and that while they were in prison they usually did what they were told. He seemed to find it rather gratifying to know that they were such kind and gentle people once they had been caught.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not himself want to be contemptuous of opinions which differ from his. Emphasis on the fact that convicted murderers are well behaved prisoners was highly relevant to an Amendment which was directed to what one would do with prisoners who were not well behaved. This was the whole point.

Sir S. McAdden: I never attempted to dispute the relevance of the argument which the hon. Gentleman was advancing. The arguments which he advances on most subjects are usually relevant. I am simply commenting that he pays tribute to the fact that murderers, while they may be unpleasant people when committing murder, become well behaved once they have been caught. He went on to say that in our prisons there are many people of violent and brutal disposition who have not committed murder, yet.
The rejection of these reasonable Amendments would be a clear incitement to them to commit murder in future if they wanted to do so.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise—

It being One o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Resolution [18th March].

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

Sitting suspended—

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.—

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT ANNE, SOHO BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Departmental Activities and Staff

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the main activities of his Department during the past three months; what is the present staff employed; and whether it is sufficient for the work involved in the future.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Houghton): The normal duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy and many others besides. The present staff is the same as that given in my reply to the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) on 23rd November, 1964, and is adequate
for the time being.

Mr. Gresham-Cooke: As it seems that every seventh Wednesday the Chancellor is to become a sort of questionable scapegoat for the Minister of Agriculture and as the Chancellor owns a lot of agricultural properties, will he be answering for his right hon. Friend and is he satisfied that he will not want more staff for this purpose?

Mr. Houghton: I do not think I am called upon to comment on that supplementary question.

Allen Committee (Report)

Mr. Channon: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in his review of the social security arrangements, he will take into account the findings of the Allen Committee.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent he will take account of the comments of the Allen Committee on the

problems of those on low incomes in his review of social security problems.

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he intends to take to alleviate the hardship of those on low incomes as described in the Report of the Allen Committee on the Rating System.

Mr. Houghton: The Report of the Allen Committee is being studied. I am aware of its estimate of the number of people entitled to National Assistance but not receiving it. On this point, I am awaiting further information from the survey which will shortly be made into the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners. When the facts have been established, so far as this is possible, they will be considered in our review.

Mr. Channon: Will the Chancellor say when he expects to receive this report and that he regards it as a matter of urgency and will co-ordinate his activities with those of the Minister of Housing, because the Allen Committee has shown this to be a matter which requires urgent consideration and examination? When are the Government likely to come forward with the positive proposals which are urgently needed?

Mr. Houghton: I agree that it is eminently desirable that those who are entitled to National Assistance but who do not draw it should be made aware of their rights and encouraged to use them. That would bring great comfort on all sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance said only on Monday, however, that she was considering further publicity to bring National Assistance and their rights and entitlement to the notice of those who may he concerned.

Mr. Driberg: For the information of hon. Members, will my right hon. Friend be good enough to define and clarify the limits of his responsibility? Will he explain, for instance, why he is answering these Questions about his general review of social security but has transferred other Questions, also concerning the general review, to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance?

Mr. Houghton: In general, my responsibilities are those of co-ordination of


the social services, and Questions in the House about co-ordination of the social services will normally come to me, but Questions relating even to the review of a particular sector of the social services could appropriately go to the Minister concerned. As my hon. Friend will realise, it is not easy to draw a firm line of division between the responsibilities of the co-ordinator and those of the departmental Minister concerned. We do our best to get these matters in proper order, but in general the position is as I have stated.

Lord Balniel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement which he has just made announcing further delay before action is taken to help those with low incomes to pay their rates is disappointing? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in the manifesto of the Labour Party he was pledged to lighten the burden of rates, which today falls heavily on those with low incomes, but that so far no action has been taken? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect publication of the report to which he has referred?

Mr. Houghton: The part of the Allen Report to which the Question was addressed related to the Committee's opinion of the number of persons who may be entitled to National Assistance but are not claiming it, and it was to that that I addressed my reply. The inquiry which is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on the financial and other circumstances of retirement pensioners is designed to discover more about this matter and to ascertain as far as possible the truth about the extent to which people are entitled to National Assistance but are not claiming it. That survey is to be conducted this summer. A pilot survey was conducted last autumn and was referred to in a speech which I made in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jenkin.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. Was Question No.5 answered with No.4, Mr. Speaker?

Several Hon. Members: The hon. Member was not here when it was called.

Mr. Hamilton: I am here now.

Mr. Speaker: I regret the circumstances. I had not noticed the arrival of the hon. Member. I looked for him in the place which he usually occupies. He will have to forgo asking a supplementary question this time if he will forgive me.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answers and the fact that I was not called, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Bence: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have not been called to ask Question No.11.

Mr. Speaker: That was answered with Question No.4. [Interruption.] Order. Even if it seems pompous, I must remind the House of its duty to hear the Chair in silence, otherwise it gets misheard and there is trouble. I was telling the hon. Member that his Question was answered with Question No.4.

Social Security (Review)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a report on the progress of his review on the structure of social security.

Mr. Curran: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will now make a statement about his review of the social services.

Mr. Houghton: All I can say about the review is that we are getting on with it.

Mr. Ridsdale: Surely, after 13 years in Opposition, the Chancellor can answer without appointing a social security review what will be the cost of a national minimum income when introduced and whether it is to be introduced without a means test. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the health of the Government has been seriously undermined by its almost broken promise a day?

Mr. Houghton: I am aware that supplementary questions of that sort are a sheer impertinence.

Mr. Curran: Will the Minister publish the evidence that he has so far taken in his review of the social services? Can he tell us which organisations have given evidence to him?

Mr. Houghton: The question of publication of evidence or advice which is given in the course of the review will be considered later. We are under no obligation to publish. As to the names of organisations which have given or which may later give information or evidence, I do not consider it necessary at this stage to disclose names of any organisations. This is a review which is being undertaken through the machinery of Government. I have explained this more than once. We are proceeding with it on that basis and subsequent happenings on the review must await our consideration of the circumstances at the time.

Sir K. Joseph: In view of the constantly changing positions which the right hon. Gentleman's party has taken over the years on these important subjects, will he not invite the main voluntary bodies concerned with social security to give hint evidence of what they think, or is he simply depending upon the general invitation which he has issued in this House?

Mr. Houghton: We are not depending on the general invitation. We shall invite many of the main organisations concerned to come to us to give evidence.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Chancellor's reply to my reasoned Question, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Computers (Contracts)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, when awarding contracts for computers for his Department, he will bear in mind the employment needs of development areas such as North Lanarkshire, which manufacture computers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Houghton: I am not responsible for awarding contracts for computers, but no doubt the Ministers who are will have noted what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of his right hon. Friends the fact that nearly 4 per cent. of the insurable population of the area, including several hundred school-leavers, are unemployed? As the equipment for the manufacture of computers

is in existence, will he do his utmost to see that his right hon. Friends bear this in mind when awarding contracts?

Mr. Houghton: I will do what my hon. Friend says, and I suggest that he gives me support by getting in touch with the Ministers himself.

Duchy of Lancaster (Annuity)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will explain the item, Annuity received from the Consolidated Fund under Acts of 43 Geo. III & 2& 3 Will. IV for the purchase and surrender of the duties of prisage and butlerage within the County Palatine, in the account of the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster 1964.

Mr. Houghton: These Acts empowered the Treasury to contract for the purchase of the duties of prisage and butlerage of wines enjoyed, under the provisions of previous grants, by the Sovereign in right of the Duchy of Lancaster and several other persons. The annuity of £803 to the Duchy is compensation for surrender of the right to these duties.

Mr. Bence: Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that it is time this sort of compensation for losing the right to brew beer or distil spirits was taken away. The days of the shebeen have gone, and it is shocking that £803 a year should be paid as compensation for the loss of old traditions and ceremonies of hundreds of years ago. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to abolish it?

Mr. Houghton: It is not for the Chancellor of the Duchy to take anything away from the Duchy of Lancaster.

Social Workers

Lord Balniel: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will initiate an inquiry into the desirability of appointing an inter-disciplinary council to co-ordinate research and the recruiting, training and deployment of social workers.

Mr. Houghton: I am consulting the other Ministers concerned about the noble Lord's suggestion.

Lord Balniel: That is a very welcome advance, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a real need


for an improvement in the co-ordination of the work of the social workers? Will he also recognise that at the moment there is no single authority responsible for co-ordinating the recruiting, training and research programmes of the social workers? Will he actively pursue these matters?

Mr. Houghton: I am aware that there are matters here for consideration. I read with interest the hon. Gentleman's letter to The Times recently, and there is undoubtedly a case for consulting the Ministers concerned, which I said I would do.

Benefices

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many advowsons he now holds; how many benefices within his gift are at present vacant; and what is the average duration of such vacancies.

Mr. Houghton: The Sovereign in right of the Duchy of Lancaster is patron of 44 benefices. The Chancellor himself is not the patron. Two benefices are vacant now and the average duration of vacancies (taken over the last three years) is some 7½ weeks to date of presentation and 17 weeks to date of institution.

Mr. Driberg: I thank my right hon. Friend for the latter part of that reply, which shows that he advises the Sovereign rather more promptly than some other people do, but can he say whether there is a common list or, as it were, a common pool of clergymen on which he and other public patrons can draw?

Mr. Houghton: The answer is "Yes, Sir".

Rents

Mr. Small: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the amount of rent in the Savoy included within the item Rents Accrued, 1964, in the receipts column of his revenue account for 1963–64; and how this compares with rent so included from the same source in 1955–56.

Mr. Houghton: £19,147, in 1963–64 compared with £16,598 in 1955–56.

Mr. Small: Does my right hon. Friend attribute that loss to the passing of the 1957 Rent Act?

Mr. Houghton: No, Sir. These revenues are in part divisible with the Crown Estate Commissioners.

Land

Mr. Small: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many acres of land were purchased by the Duchy in 1963–64 what was the average cost per acre; and how this compares with the cost per acre of land bought in 1955.

Mr. Houghton: In 1963–64 21 acres of land were purchased at £176 per acre. Land bought in 1955 cost £84 per acre.

Mr. Small: Can my right hon. Friend tell me the use to which the land is put? Is the Duchy constructing any houses on the land, and if so for whom? Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to dispose of any land and give preference to local authorities?

Mr. Houghton: The Duchy does not normally construct houses on Duchy land. On the other matters the administration of the Duchy is in the best traditions of modern estate management.

Mr. Woodburn: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this purchase of land can be described as nationalising land, and who first nationalised it under the Duchy?

Mr. Houghton: If I may say so, to use a colloquial term, the Duchy is in business. We buy and sell land in accordance with the interests of the disposition and management of the Duchy estates. I find this new rôle of landlord a very fascinating one indeed.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the obviously increased interest of Members in the Duchy, he will consider not only making available in the Vote Office the annual accounts of the Duchy, but producing an annual report? Does not he recognise that when he is next at the top of the list to answer Questions there will be many more Questions than today's 19?

Mr. Houghton: I am bound by an Act of Parliament, of which my hon. Friend is aware, to present the accounts of the Duchy to Parliament, and at the moment my obligations as Chancellor of the


Duchy do not go further. What appears in the Vote Office is not a matter for me.
As regards further information about the affairs of the Duchy, all I can say is that if Questions are put down, and if when they are put down they stay down, I shall be prepared to answer them.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Distributive and Manufacturing Trades (Costs)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the proportion of increased costs the food traders and manufacturers have borne over the last 10 years, as compared with the whole of the agricultural industry.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Frederick Peart): The necessary detailed information for such a comparison is not available in the case of the food distributive and manufacturing trades, but I have been assured by representatives of the food trades, whom I have seen, that they will absorb as much as possible of any extra costs through increasing productivity, which is what we are asking of the agricultural industry.

Mr. Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the agricultural industry is bearing an ever-increasing a mount of the costs, and this indeed is an object lesson to other industries? Will he also bear in mind that at the recent Price Review we did not have a fair recoupment of these costs? Lastly, will he bear in mind that this has finally demolished the myth that the Socialists—and the late Tom Williams—are friends of the agricultural community?

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory campaign at Saffron Walden was a flop, and indeed that where we put our agricultural case we had a 2·2 per cent. increase in the poll? We ascertain costs, and the hon. Gentleman must know that at every review costs are taken into account, and this has always been so in connection with the agricultural industry.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: May I welcome the Minister and say how glad we are

to see him here? Can he say what is the increase in costs to the distributors of milk, the people who retail the milk, which justified the increase which he gave them at the recent Price Review?

Mr. Peart: The cost of distribution to milk retailers is a different matter. The hon. Gentleman was once a Minister in this Department and he should know that during a Price Review this is a matter which we consider when discussing the position of the producer.

Mr. Bessell: While appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman cannot produce this information immediately, may I ask whether he is prepared to follow this matter up and produce the information for which the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Mills) has asked?

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the costs of distribution, I shall be making an announcement very shortly. I am anxious to have an inquiry. On costing in relation to the milk industry, it is a convention of the Review that no details are given, and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) knows that that is the position.

Verdon Smith Committee (Report)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now decided to accept all or some of the recommendations of the Verdon Smith Report.

Mr. Peart: As was announced in the Annual Review White Paper, urgent consideration is being given to proposals for the establishment of a Meat and Livestock Commission, which would be charged with responsibilities for the improvement of meat marketing. I have written to the main organisations concerned inviting them to discuss these proposals and I will make a further statement when the discussions have been completed.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) of procrastination on this issue last July? The last time that he answered Questions he suggested that he would have to come to detailed conclusions on


this. When are we going to have his detailed conclusions? Will he read carefully the sensible suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) does not represent informed opinion on this matter. I am consulting all the main organisations which will be affected by the proposals in the White Paper. I can do no more than that, and I think it right and proper to have consultations. There will be no delay, and we shall make a decision.

Mr. Jopling: Will the Minister tell us whether the commission that he has in mind will have control over imported as well as home-produced products?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should wait and see what will happen after my consultations.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: After the announcement of any decisions, and before they are implemented, may we have an opportunity of debating this matter? Further, can the Minister say what is the point of these consultations if, as he said when he last answered Questions on this matter, he has already come to a conclusion?

Mr. Peart: I have—and that is why I made the specific statement in the White Paper to set up a commission. It is right and proper that I should have discussions with the trade, the producers and the important interests that will be affected.

Tenant Farmers

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement dealing with the problem of compensation for tenant farmers whose land is subject to a compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member on 2nd December and 3rd February.

Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that this is an increasing problem in the numerous new towns, and also in the expanding existing towns? Will he make an effort to come to a speedy conclusion on this subject?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I accept that it is an important matter. I realise that there is a problem here. The hon. Member will appreciate, however, that there are many technical difficulties, involving legal matters. As soon as I come to a decision, I shall make an announcement.

Mr. Ensor: Can my right hon. Friend tell me why lengthy discussions are required on this subject?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that many interests are involved. It is not an easy matter. It affects other Departments. I feel that we should do something about this, but before I complete my talks I want to have some time before I make a decision.

Old Orchards (Clearance)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on assistance to growers in grubbing old orchards.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): The Government's policy is to encourage by means of grants the clearance of orchards on agricultural land which have outlived their usefulness, especially those which harbour pests and diseases and produce poor quality fruit.

Mr. Wells: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some indication of his further policy on grants in respect of this matter, instead of merely saying that he hopes to encourage it? Can he give a cash figure, especially in view of the disappointing Written Answer we had from him about the decline in the blackcurrant acreage, when we had hoped that there would have been a greater production than there was last year?

Mr. Hoy: The grants amount to one-third of the cost. This public contribution to the solving of the problem seems to be having an effect. We would perhaps like things to move more quickly, but it is not an insubstantial grant.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: How has this scheme worked out during the last year?

Mr. Hoy: It has not been going for that length of time, but we would like it to speed up a little. In certain areas


our officers have encouraged people to proceed more speedily.

Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these orchards are in Somerset and Devon, which are dairy counties, and that it will be helpful if something can be done for farmers there who rely on dairy milk?

Mr. Hoy: We are aware of the problems. That is why the grants are paid. In certain areas further action might be necessary. I can assure the hon. Member that it has not been overlooked.

Production Capacity (Use)

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to utilise to the fall the production capacity of British farmers and horticulturists to help Great Britain's balance of trade position.

Mr. Peart: We are taking steps to encourage the best use of the capacities of our farmers and growers, both by stimulating an increase in production where it can help our balance of payments most and by encouraging an even faster growth in productivity.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase in standard quantities, especially in cereals, is very welcome and might be held to represent an expansionist tendency, whereas the International Cereals Agreements are help by many to represent a counterinfluence? Will my right hon. Friend comment on this and refresh my memory as to the parties to those agreements?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will be aware that the International Agreements of Cereals were concluded with our main suppliers—Australia, Argentina, the United States and Canada—and were partly the responsibility of my predecessor. [Interruption.] Of course they were. I was addressing the questioner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Address the Chair."] The National Farmers' Union supported these agreements. I have an obligation in principle to support these agreements, which I have done, and hon. Members opposite must also accept responsibility for supporting them.

Sir M. Redmayne: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter that we look

forward with keen anticipation to debating next week?

Mr. Peart: Certainly, and I hope that those hon. Members who shouted "Resign!" so strongly will also attend the debate.

Mr. Ensor: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why it was necessary for the Government, in the Price Review, to reduce the guaranteed price of cereals?

Mr. Peart: I have given an explanation in my White Paper. I have also replied over and over again to Questions on the point. We were bound by an agreement, and I had to honour it. That is why I made the decision.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that his imposed solution in the Price Review is preventing the agricultural industry from giving greater help to the balance of payments position?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that, because some of my proposals in the Review are designed to increase meat production, for example. This is important.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only the Liberal Party did not support standard quantities? Is he further aware that in this Review there is no sign of an expansionist policy on the part of the Government? Does he know that the price of beef in this country is 34s. a cwt. below the price in Europe?

Mr. Peart: I was not aware that when the cereal agreement was approved by the previous Administration the Liberal Party in the House made a protest. I am certain I am right about that.

Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Question put down by his hon. Friend is typical of the sort of illusion which the Government tried to create before the Price Review, when they tried to give the impression the whole time that they would look after the interests of agriculture and safeguard the balance of payments position? Is he aware of the great disappointment and disillusionment on the part of the farming industry resulting from his policy?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. The Question put by my hon. Friend shows


that he has a deep interest in agriculture. I am not aware that there is any revulsion among sensible farmers. When people in the farming world read my proposals in the White Paper carefully I believe they will accept that we are embarked upon a sensible and progressive farm policy.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers cannot make their full contribution to solving our balance of trade problem unless they are paid enough to cover the costs of production? How does he reconcile the statement that he made at first in answer to this Question with the under-recoupment that takes place as a result of the Price Review?

Mr. Peart: This is not so. I have explained over and over again that even taking into consideration the £29 million increase on costs the Price Review will give farmers an opportunity to increase their income. It is a £6 million increase. At the same time, owing to the demand in relation to meat products the farmer will get a price above the guaranteed price laid down in the Review. Farmers have an opportunity to increase their income, but we must balance producers' interests with the interests of the consumers.

Shellfish Industry

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on increased aid to the shellfish industry.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what official assistance is available for shellfishers; what representations he has received about the inadequacy of this assistance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: Shellfishers receive assistance in a number of forms, including grants and loans for their vessels and engines and loans for their gear. I have received two representations for a subsidy. The present position of the industry does not suggest that increased assistance would be justified.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the imports of shellfish in

1964 were about £1 million in value above 1963, and does not he agree that we could supply a lot more of our own requirements if we had suitable processing plant? Will he give sympathetic consideration to any suitable schemes put forward by the fishermen?

Mr. Hoy: I can give an assurance that schemes put forward will receive consideration. Regarding the importation of shellfish, there is a substantial amount of protection for our own market.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of disquiet among the shell fishermen about the activities of skin divers whom they accuse of wrecking the shellfish beds? Will he look at the matter carefully, particularly in relation to Cornwall, where the fishermen are extremely anxious to see that the Sea Fisheries Committee function properly?

Mr. Hoy: I am aware of the problem, and we have looked at it. So far the evidence does not show that damage is being done, but I can assure the House that I shall keep the matter under review, because I should not like anything to happen that would damage the prospects of the shell fishermen.

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say something about oysters? Can he say whether his research establishment at Burnham-on-Crouch is carefully watching the effects on the oyster spat in the Blackwater of the effluent from the nuclear power station just opposite, which is hot, highly chlorinated, and slightly radioactive?

Mr. Hoy: The question of oyster beds has received considerable attention. They form a valuable part of the shell fishermen's products. In our research establishments we have been giving a lot of attention to them, not only in connection with the problem raised by my hon. Friend, but with conditions in other parts of the country.

Meat Inspection Charges

Mr. Awdry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to remove the imposition of meat inspection charges levied under Regulation 12 of the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1963, on the


owners of carcases in slaughterhouses, in view of the fact that no such charge is levied on other similar inspections of food on public health grounds.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): My right hon. Friend is reviewing the operation of the Regulations, but I regret that I cannot anticipate the outcome of this Review.

Mr. Awdry: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend, as long ago a s 1963 when he was a "shadow" of his present self, said that the costs of these inspections should be borne by the nation? As he has now been in office for five months, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to get on and bring forward his Regulations as quickly as possible?

Mr. Mackie: Yes.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that there is difficulty in some rural areas over these meat inspection charges which have become a heavy burden on some rural local authorities? Will he give an undertaking to have a review to see whether the balance can be redressed?

Mr. Mackie: We appreciate the fact that many big slaughterhouses can recoup the cost from the trade. There is difficulty in the smaller rural areas, and that is something of which my right hon. Friend will take careful note in his review.

Mr. Hamling: In view of the interest of the Opposition Front Bench in getting more money out of the taxpayer for farming interests, will my right hon. Friend arrange in future for Questions on this subject put to his Department to be transferred to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Cereal Deficiency Payments and Ploughing Grants

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many claims for cereal deficiencies and ploughing grants have been refused by his Department during 1964, owing to non-receipt by his Department before the closing date;
(2) how many claims from the county of Norfolk for cereal deficiencies and ploughing grants have been refused by his Department during 1963 and 1964, owing to non-receipt by his Department before the due closing date.

Mr. John Mackie: In 1964, 154 late claims for cereals deficiency payments and 266 late claims for ploughing grants were rejected in England and Wales. Of these, 5 and 3, respectively, were from Norfolk. Nineteen late claims from Norfolk for cereals deficiency payments and 1 for ploughing grant were rejected in 1963.

Mr. Gilmour: I welcome the fact, if it is a fact, that the figures for Norfolk seem to be no worse proportionately than for other counties. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that to withhold deficiency payments because claims are late is a penalty out of all proportion to the offence? Will not he work out some more sensible and rational system?

Mr. Mackie: Hon. Members should remember that these claims result in a considerable enhancement of farmers' incomes and that farmers should do their best to see that the claims are made in time. We should appreciate that the number of claims makes an enormous amount of work at the Ministry and that if they are late some form of penalty should be imposed. We are looking at the question and we know the difficulties. The system is such that only illness and administrative faults are taken into consideration in respect of late claims. I agree that in many cases the penalty is heavy, but I hope hon. Members will appreciate that the farmers who are getting something for the claims ought to do their best to see that they do not cause added work at the Ministry.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has given a somewhat sympathetic answer to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend. Would he go further and say that the Government are considering a possible system of fines to meet a problem which certainly exists?

Mr. Mackie: I cannot anticipate what we are going to do. We shall consider what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Hooson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many late claims


were allowed? Is he aware that from past experience with the previous Government I know that there is great dissatisfaction when some claims are allowed and some are not? Will he state the basis on which late claims are allowed, or are disallowed?

Mr. Mackie: The only basis on which late claims are allowed is if there is illness at the time of the claim or an administrative fault on the part of the Ministry. If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, I will send them to him.

Dairy Farmers

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the recent increase in costs, he is satisfied that the return to the dairy farmer is now adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increasing costs to dairy farmers, he is satisfied that adequate recoupment has been provided for them and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the price of milk adequately reflects recent increases in farmers' costs; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. I believe that the award made in the Annual Review provides a fair and adequate return to efficient dairy farmers, after taking into account their increase in costs. As hon. Members will know, by convention the estimated cost increases for individual commodities are not given. Hon. Members will, however, have noted that neither the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board nor the farmers' leaders claim that cost increases have been more than the increase in the guaranteed price.

Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister aware that both the Price Review and his Answer constitute a very severe blow to the hopes and confidence of the dairy farmers? Will he bear in mind that many of these farmers, particularly the small farmers, have no alternative means of livelihood and that now their hopes are at the lowest level they have ever been?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. The hon. Member knows full well the trends in dairy production— I mentioned this in the White Paper—and the fact that numbers of small farmers have been leaving the industry for ten years. There were no protests from hon. Members opposite during that time. The award which I have given means £11 million more directly to the dairy producers. It means a guaranteed price and a standard quantity more realistic and more generous in relation to awards made previously under successive Tory Administrations.

Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he reconciles what he said last year about the dire consequences to dairy farmers of the price policy then obtaining with the price policy outlined in the White Paper?

Mr. Peart: Last year's Price Review, together with this year's represents a 10 per cent. increase. This is a great improvement over previous years. It shows that we are anxious to see that the efficient dairy farmer is enabled to secure an income.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If it is shown in the next few months that the number of small dairy farmers going out of business increases, and in view of the terrible effect which the Review has had among the small dairy farmers, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to review this matter in a matter of a few months before the winter?

Mr. Peart: Of course not. The hon. Member knows full well that the problem is whether the dairy herd is maintained and milk production goes up. There is already a 45 per cent. reserve, as the hon. Member must know. I think that extravagant talk by irresponsible politicians does no good.

Mr. Ensor: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many times in the last ten years a Review has been imposed?

Mr. Peart: I would say, in the last eight years, four times. Apart from that in relation to milk, if I could give figures of the amount awarded over a period, last year it was +2·5d., the year previously +½d., in 1962 –0.4d., in 1961 +0·8d., in 1960, again under the Conservatives, —¼d., in 1959 no change, in


1958 –1d. In reply to my hon. Friend, I would say that it is surprising that there was no opposition then from the benches opposite.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is it not a fact that during those years the prices policy was squeezing out a certain amount of inefficient and surplus production but now the trend is downwards and the national dairy herd is smaller this year than it was last? That is a significant fact.

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept the hon. Member's figures about the trend in the dairy herd. It is not so, from the latest figures.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Minister say how many dairy farmers have received letters from compassionate landlords saying that as a result of their indignation about the Price Review they will decrease their rents?

Mr. Peart: I shall look into that interesting supplementary.

Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he has made in separating information and statistics about agriculture in Wales from similar information and statistics about agriculture in England, since the creation of the office of the Secretary of State for Wales; and what administrative changes or other steps he will take in view of this change.

Mr. John Mackie: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), on 16th February. As part of the review of Welsh statistics which is being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, we shall be discussing with him what further agricultural statistics for Wales separately can be provided. Since the creation of the office of the Secretary of State for Wales the Ministry's own Welsh Department at Aberystwyth has been strengthened by the addition of a chief executive officer responsible for, among other things, statistics and information.

Mr. Gower: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated that even in

Departments for which the Secretary of State for Wales does not have executive powers he will, nevertheless, have an important say? Is he satisfied that these changes will enable him to make an intelligent assessment of the particular needs of Welsh agriculture?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, Sir. That is so, but, there is a tremendous amount of statistics which can be got from the Welsh digest of statistics published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and more detailed tables prepared by the Ministry's Welsh Department in its annual digest of Welsh agricultural statistics. There is a large volume of statistical information, largely on a county basis, and there is the Government Report on Wales, published appropriately on St. David's Day, which also gives an enormous amount of statistics for Wales.

Mr. Stodart: If the hon. Gentleman is looking at agricultural statistics generally, will he cast his eye towards the Scottish Office, where the statistics are a model to these and better than the English ones as a whole?

Mr. Mackie: I always appreciate a plug for Scotland.

Costs

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increases in total costs to the agricultural industry during 1964–65, he will take steps to offset this added burden and ensure a higher level in real income to the industry so that the level of production can be maintained.

Mr. Peart: The Review award, together with the industry's increasing productivity, will more than offset the increased costs and give the industry the opportunity of improving its income. The award will, moreover, stimulate production where this is most needed.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the industry will have to bear £19 million of the increased cost this year. How does he reconcile this with the promises which he made before and during the election that he would see that agricultural incomes in real terms would make a good advance?

Mr. Peart: As I have said repeatedly, there is no reason why the farmers' real income should not improve. Increased costs were taken into consideration, and agreed at £29 million. There was an increase in productivity worth £25 million, and a £10 million plus award, which means a real income increase of £6 million. There is no reason why efficient progressive farmers and good farmers should not increase their income. Added to that, we are giving aid to small farmers by various means, and also hill farmers in many upland areas.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in the agricultural industry that it has been discriminated against, that whereas great increases of cost have been accepted in other industries in this country and their income increased, the farming industry feels that it is being uniquely discriminated against in this matter?

Mr. Peart: This is not so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes it is."] As the Minister responsible for food as well, I have met, in my Department's activities, all the food manufacturing industries in the various sections and I have insisted that there shall be no cost-plus increases. I believe that this must also apply to the farming industry. The farming industry is being asked to absorb a percentage of its costs. Of course this is right for every industry, and I am making no discrimination.

Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of his comments on the Price Review this afternoon, the farming industry as a whole feels that it has been grossly betrayed as a result of the election pledges which were given to the industry by the right hon. Gentleman and by his colleagues during the election campaign?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept this. Here is a £10 million plus award, which compares very favourably with previous awards, where the farmer has an opportunity for an increased income, and, what is more important, the farmer has an indication of what will be the long-term policy for the industry to make the industry more efficient, more competitive and more aware of how productivity will increase.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that it makes it very difficult, with the

kind of profits which the farmers will be making in the future, to pay increased agricultural wages?

Mr. Peart: I really cannot accept that. I have repeated the facts, but hon. Members opposite, because of their political prejudices, will not accept them. I am sure that when sensible farmers read the White Paper and consider the issues, they will think that the approach in our Review is sensible and constructive.

Smallholdings

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he will make a statement on the future of county council smallholdings.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee on Smallholdings.

Mr. Peart: The Wise Committee of Inquiry are still taking oral evidence, and are making steady progress. As the hon. Members will know from answers I have given them earlier, I expect to receive the Committee's interim report before the end of the year. I cannot make a statement on the future of county council smallholdings until I have received and studied the report.

Mr. Ridsdale: Have not the Minister and the Department been brooding for a long time? Is it not time for them to produce at least an Easter egg? Could we not have a progress report, because it makes it difficult for us to discuss the problem with the county council smallholders?

Mr. Peart: I can only say that the hon. Member has a chicken complex. The Wise Committee was set up by the previous Administration. I think that hon. Members should allow it to make a full inquiry. It would be silly to rush this. This is a very important issue. That is why I have said that I would rather not make a statement until they have finished their deliberations. I think that this is right and sensible.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that what hon. Members opposite want is not an Easter egg but a series of golden eggs?

Beef

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the increased costs to the beef industry, he is satisfied that adequate recoupment has been made to this industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the increase it costs to the breeders and fatteners of beef animals, he is satisfied that sufficient attention has been paid to the need to maintain and increase their level of production; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peart: Costs are one of the factors we took into account at the Review. The increases we have made in the guaranteed price, the calf subsidy, the hill cow subsidy, as well as on milk, are designed to encourage an increase in beef production.

Mr. Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the amount that we had from the Price Review was only about half what was necessary to keep the confidence of the beef industry going, and, indeed, that he has done nothing with regard to the heifer subsidy or any of the other proposals which were suggested?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the White Paper. If he looks at the increased price for cattle, plus the increase in the calf subsidy rate, he will find that, altogether, it is a plus award of £8 million. This is not inconsiderable.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember the words that he uttered about a long-term policy for beef? Does he intend to implement the proposal? If so, when? Or is this another of the Government's half-broken pledges?

Mr. Peart: Certainly the proposals in the Review will be implemented. Apart from beef, I want improved marketing, which will in the end help the producer. That is why I am initiating discussions, as I said earlier—so that a decision can be reached.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend publish another White Paper now stating just how much taxpayers' money has been paid to the farming industry since the war? Will he also state what other private industry has ever been assisted to this extent by the taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must restrict the supplementary questions to beef, or we shall be going a little wide of the original Question.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that beef producers in many parts of the country are not obtaining any net return at all at present, and that there is no hope of getting the sort of increase in beef production that we need on the basis of the miserly improvements offered in the Price Review?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that I have given an award of £8 million for increased beef production, which is not being ungenerous. Also, in view of the market position and the demand, there have been high prices. So beef producers will not be impoverished.

Sir M. Redmayne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the sort of view which has been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) which is destroying the confidence of farmers because they believe that that view permeates the Labour Party?

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman should know that I have always been a greater defender of the 1947 and 1957 Acts in principle, and the Labour Party defends the principle. [Interruption.] All right. If the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) had had his way and we had gone into the Community under the terms of the Common Market—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House requires me to secure reasonable progress with Questions. They cannot wander round the European map. Also, with respect, answers should not be used for making attacks on other people, because that merely provokes further debate.

Mr. Peart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to an intervention by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe


(Sir M. Redmayne), I was merely suggesting that the Conservative Party, if it had taken the advice of his colleague, would have destroyed the basis of the 1947 and 1957 Acts, which, after all, is fundamentally the basis of the policy which I am advocating today.

Mr. Speaker: I know that there are all sorts of things wrong. One is that every intervention by the Chair ends up in a waste of time, which is not what was intended. Another thing is that observations from a seated posture do not help very much.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has never been a time in the past 40 years or so since I have been in this assembly when the farmers have ceased to grumble? Is he also aware that we on this side consider that he is making a first-class job of the Ministry?

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that a 1d. on a gallon of milk will keep the small producers in business? Does he think that the increase in the price of beef will enable small farmers to shift from milk to beef?

Mr. Peart: I have given replies about what I have done for beef, and how there has been a plus award. As to the small farmer, I have described in the White Paper a policy for a small farmer scheme which is an improvement on the previous one, and the allocation of £5 million for the small farmer scheme is a step in the direction of ensuring that small farmers can become more efficient and more viable.

Eggs

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the estimated production of home eggs in 1965.

Mr. Hoy: In view of the difficulties of forecasting egg production I could not give a precise estimate but, as stated in the Annual Review White Paper, the prospect is that in 1965–66 there will be a closer balance between supplies and demand than in 1964–65.

Sir H. Harrison: In view of that reply and the cut of ld. in the price of eggs

in the Price Review, will the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend consult with his colleagues in the Cabinet now to prohibit the importation of foreign eggs? May I ask the Minister to look on this more favourably because I see from pictures in the national Press that he is now a keeper of poultry.

Mr. Hoy: I think that my right hon. Friend would keep a better variety. There is no sign that there will be any shortage in egg production. As I have said before, the importation of shell eggs is rather less than 2 per cent. of our total egg consumption. Anyway, we have to buy from other people as well as sell to them.

Mr. Haffer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it will be rather difficult to keep an organised check on egg production if certain farmers keep giving their chickens away?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that a more constructive approach is adopted than just chopping the guaranteed price? Will he bear in mind that as domestic production equals domestic consumption, merely reducing the price by ld. is no constructive solution to the problem?

Mr. Hoy: I do not say that that is the whole answer to the problem. Talks are going on with regard to the production of eggs, the sale of eggs, and, in fact, the whole question of egg production and marketing. These talks are going on between the Ministry and the industry. Until they reach some conclusions, it would be foolish for me to anticipate the findings.

Cereals

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the estimated acreage under barley and wheat in 1965.

Mr. Prior: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of cereals he estimates will be grown in the 1965 season.

Mr. John Mackie: I am unable to make any such estimates so early in the season, but the results of the 4th March agricultural census will become available in the second half of April.

Sir H. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great upset among cereal growers in the Eastern Counties as the result of the action taken by his right hon. Friend in the Price Review, because they are contributing so much to the balance of payments, on which subject the Prime Minister has exhorted us to do so well, and yet on the other side his right Friend the Minister has done everything to discourage the cereal grower?

Mr. Mackie: I am certainly not aware of that. I am sure I can produce figures to show that the farmers are perfectly happy with the cut. I think that the Front Bench opposite will agree that my right hon. Friend had no option but to make the cut.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is no good going on with this argument because since the General Election his party has signed agreements on exactly similar lines with foreign countries with regard to minimum import price arrangements? Will he say whether the Government could not have given a bigger increase in the standard quantity for wheat and barley, and as the consumption of grain was up by £1 million last year and the standard quantity has been increased by only £350,000, could not the Minister have increased it further?

Mr. Mackie: On the second part, we have raised the standard quantity. It may not be up to the estimate of last year's crop, but it is well up. We do not yet know whether the estimate is correct, anyway, and so I do not think the hon. Gentleman can quibble about it. As to the first part of the Question, it is not true that we are raising the subject all the time. But hon. Members opposite are. Anyway, it does not alter the fact that, whether we agree to it or not, the international agreements are there.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the amount of taxpayers' money given to subsidising cereals has been increasing and is now running at more than £70 million and is this not a considerable amount, even for so well organised a pressure group as we know is operating in this country?

Mr. Mackie: One should appreciate the increase. The estimate this year

showed, along with the White Paper, that the cause of the increase is that the acreage has increased and thus has the tonnage which farmers are growing.

Mr. Jopling: If the Minister finds that the estimate which he has made is not up to what we think it will be, will he increase the standard quantity to take up the difference; that is, if it is proved by the figures when we have them?

Mr. Mackie: Not until next year's Review.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. Last Thursday, 17th March, you made a statement, Mr. Speaker, indicating how you proposed to deal with an abuse of Question Time which had been brought to your attention. The abuse was that hon. Members were linking late Questions to very early Questions in the hope and expectation that they would be called to ask supplementaries.
You, in proposing to deal with this abuse, said that you would hesitate to call hon. Members for supplementary questions where a Question was later than No.50, and No.10 in the case of Questions to the Prime Minister.
I have, of course, no objection to that, except to say that this was dealing with one abuse which originated from the original abuse by hon. Members opposite.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hamilton: The effect of the Ruling would seem to many of my hon. Friends to penalise hon. Members on this side of the House rather more than hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] Precisely because the Order Paper has been abused by hon. Members opposite. To give an example: on 4th May—that is, about six weeks hence—there are already no fewer than 29 Questions down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Hon. Members: So what?

Mr. Hamilton: Of course, that is perfectly in order. I understand that. It is, however, also in order for us to tack Questions on to them since we cannot any longer put our own Questions down


—[HON. MEMBER: "What is the point?"] My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is this. To appear to be fair, and to be seen to be fair, I ask you that when you are exercising your discretion in inviting supplementaries you use the same kind of tactic with hon. Members with Questions before No.50 as with those with Questions after No.50, even supplementary questions coming from the original questioners.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member, who gave me warning this morning that he wanted to raise this point. Clearly, we cannot have a prolonged discussion about Question procedure now, or we would be trespassing on the business of the House. I would be grateful if the House would allow me a little time in which to explain how, it seems to me, as a servant of the House, I am trying to wrestle with our Question difficulties until such time as I can get guidance through the Select Committee. This is, indeed, a very serious matter.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: I beg hon. Members to hear me in silence. It is a serious matter for this reason. If a war were to arise between parties to pre-empt the Order Paper it would be easy enough utterly to defeat our processes—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Please may I be heard in silence?
Before the Select Committee reports, and should there be that to deal with, I would have to ask the House for additional powers for the reason I shall explain. Exactly what they would be I am not prepared to say now. It is a very difficult problem, but if I may explain why I should need them, there is nothing in our rules at present which prevents any hon. Member from giving as long advance notice of a Question as he wishes. It is, therefore, equally open to all hon. Members to put down Questions and I do not think that it would he for me to intervene if some hon. Members have done so and some have not.
Having said that, I must emphasise again what I said last week, namely, that I try to achieve a fair balance. The fact that a Question is asked from one side

does not necessarily mean that there should be no supplementary questions asked from the other side. These are all matters which are and, I think, must be for the discretion of the Chair.
The next problem is this. I could not ask the House for additional powers unless I had a sound basis to go upon. I do not want to be misunderstood. I absolutely accept, for my part, the conviction of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and his hon. Friends' conviction that we are here faced with some sort of abuse in pre-empting the Order Paper. I absolutely accept that, but I would, before I asked the House for additional powers, have to justify my request, and that is difficult.
The House will appreciate that the fact that a Question is put down very early is now, alas, in no sense incriminating, because if an hon. Member wants an Oral Answer to Question, such is the state of the Order Book that he must do that a preposterous time ahead. So I have done my best to find out what the real position is. I looked at the day after the hon. Member first raised the matter with me—namely, on 18th March—and I compared 18th March, 1965, with 18th March, 1964, and looked at the relevant state of the Order Book.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I read the figures a little slowly. I find that the distribution by the parties of early Questions for future days on that basis is as follows: in 1965, Conservative, 677; Liberal, 24, and Labour, 448. In 1964, when we reversed the seating, the figures were Conservative, 143; Liberal, 11, and Labour, 261.
If the House will do the sum it will see that it means that the proportion of total Questions down for Answer on future days in the names of hon. Members of the principal Opposition party last year was 63 per cent. and that this year the relevant proportion is 59 per cent. [Interruption.] I am not making any point, except that it does not seem to be much different. It is true that during this Session hon. Members have been putting down their Questions far ahead and are so filling up the Order Book to an unprecedented size. The practice is common to both sides of the House. It may not be thought desirable, but that is a matter which I hope the Select Committee will


look into. To prevent the practice would require an alteration in our rules, and that is outside my power.

Mr. William Hamilton: I am obliged to you for that statement, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I will be allowed to say this before resuming my seat. The percentages which you have given perhaps distort the picture. The main point at issue is the pre-empting of the Order Paper well in advance and the figures which you gave showed that in 1964 there were 143 Conservative Questions, and for Labour, then the Opposition, there were 261. Now the Opposition have 677 Questions, which is nearly three times as many.
This is the point about which we are complaining. We cannot surely be criticised for attaching our Questions to theirs when they are pre-empting the Order Paper three months in advance.

Mr. Speaker: I am not criticising anybody. I am, as I said, wrestling with the problem of how to get it right. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he looks al the Questions put down for future dates he will find that the number varies as between the principal parties. Sometimes one finds days when more Labour Questions are down than Conservative ones, and vice versa. It is impossible to suppose that there is a monopoly. Of course, the question of there being many more Questions raises much wider considerations which we will have to leave to the Select Committee. There are now a variety of reasons for that.

Mr. Heath: May I say, Mr. Speaker, how grateful we are to you for the guidance you have given us, and for the way you have handled this difficult situation? May I also completely reject any accusations made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that this side of the House has tried—

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am at present hearing a point of order. What the right hon. Gentleman says takes the form of a point of order thanking me for my statement.

Mr. Heath: To return to my point of order, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Gentleman has made an accusation against this side that we are trying to pre-empt the Order Paper, I completely reject that accusation. The plain fact was that, when Questions were put down in perfectly good faith on this side, Questions of exactly the same kind were immediately tacked on to them by hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would really be quite unprofitable to have a discussion of this kind. My position is firmly that I assume, I am persuaded of, I am convinced of the conviction of hon. Gentlemen, that there is an abuse. I have stated the facts as I have discovered them. I do not accept that there is an abuse, or say anything about it. I accept their conviction that there is.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the previous occasion when this matter was raised, you replied to a statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and myself. When I sought to express gratitude to you for having made a response to our submission, during the course of which expression there were noises from the other side, I was told by you that that was not the occasion for making speeches. My point of order is that the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) has made a speech in the course of which he has accused my hon. Friend. Am I allowed to reply to him now?

Mr. Speaker: No, I think not. I deprecate right hon. and hon. Members from either side making speeches of that kind in this connection. All we are trying to do is find out what it is right to do in the difficulties that arise with Questions. I will watch the situation. If I have to come to the House for additional powers, I will do so, but it is very difficult to find out what the remedy may be. I think that it would be a good idea now to get on with business; we are very short of time today.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did rise on this question on a number of occasions a few weeks ago, and I merely want now to clear up one point you made in your statement—for which we are all grateful. You


said that you accepted the statement of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that there had been abuse—

Mr. Speaker: No, no—with respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I was most careful not to. I said that I accepted the hon. Gentleman's belief that there was abuse. I was very careful to say that there was not one so far as I am concerned. It is just like that.

Mr. Fell: I am sorry to misquote you. Mr. Speaker—you accepted the hon. Gentleman's belief that there was an abuse. All I want to clear up is that you do not accept his belief that there was an abuse that was confined to one side.

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is really tangled up. I am accepting the hon. Gentleman's good faith in making a complaint. I am not accepting that he is right about the facts. I am not arguing now one way or the other. I recommend to the House that we get on with business.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. Gentleman for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) attempted to intervene. If I remember rightly, you told us that the right hon. Gentleman was on a point of order. I have not heard your answer to that point of order that the right hon. Gentleman raised. Do I take it that it was not really a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know in the least. I think that the right hon. Gentleman raised a point of order—it is the only context in which he could have arisen—

Hon. Members: He did not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not propose to discuss these matters on points of order if the House treats it like this. We must not abuse our business by unsuccessful argument here about a matter which can be well looked at by the Select Committee in due course.

AUCTIONEERS REGISTRATION

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of auctioneers; to regulate the conduct of persons carrying on business as auctioneers; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill which I wish to introduce arises out of the revelations last autumn in the Sunday Times, followed by other newspapers, of price rings and knock-outs, and particularly of the price ring that operated at the auction at Blockley, near Moreton-in-Marsh, in my constituency, followed by the knock-out in that town of which we heard later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), and other hon. Members and myself have pursued this matter by means of Questions, debates and other means in the House, and I should like to thank the Government for having been most helpful in pursuing it from their angle, for having discussions with the trade and for taking the whole thing very seriously. I know that they are now trying very hard to find means of preventing the abuse of price rings and knock-outs in the future.
My Bill would fit in with and help the Government in what they are doing. In my submission, it would go to the very heart of the matter, in that people will persist in selling their objects at lower prices than they are worth, thereby making the conditions in which the price rings can flourish and operate. This applies to the antique book trade, the antique furniture trade, to pictures, valuables of all sorts, Government surplus stores, land, animals—in fact, practically everything that is sold under the hammer.
I would now invite the House to forget, as Carlyle said:
The Correggiosity of Correggio and the learned babble of the Sale Room and the varnishing auctioneer.
and look at the economic function of the auction in our society.
Before doing that, however, it might be thought that, after last week's happenings at Christie's, it is the bidders themselves who need disciplining, and not the auctioneers. Here I cannot resist quoting the instructions which Mr. Simon gave


to the auctioneer at Christie's. They were:
When Mr. Simon is sitting down, he is bidding. If he bids openly, he is also bidding. When he stands up, he has stopped bidding. If he sits down again, he is not bidding unless he raises his finger. Having raised his finger, he is bidding until he stands up again.
This was followed up by Osbert Lancaster, with Lady Littlehampton standing on her head to indicate that she was bidding.
I wonder what would happen if I were to write to you, Mr. Speaker, to say that I wished to catch your eye in a debate, and said, "When I sit down, I want to be called. When I stand up, I stop wanting to be called. If I start talking, I do not want to be called unless I sit down, when I do." You, Mr. Speaker, quite rightly, would take no notice of me at all, and I would be unlikely to be called on that occasion. Therefore, it all goes back to the person in charge—the auctioneer—and I think that we must leave the disciplining of the bidders and follow again the fortunes of the auctioneer.
Auctioneering is an old trade, a trade as old as the hills. Herodotus tells us of the Babylonian custom of disposing of maidens in marriage by delivering them to the highest bidder at auction. The ancient Scottish name for an auction is a roup, and under a law of Henry VII auctioneering was confined to various officers of the Crown known as "out-ropers". They alone were allowed to conduct auctions. Here is a precedent, if one were wanted, for the House to intervene in the affairs of auctioneers, and to make rules and regulations for them.
The business of the auctioneer is to sell goods for the highest price that he can obtain. He does this partly through organising publicity for the sale—attracting the dealers and all conceivable buyers —and partly through his expert knowledge of the value of the goods, so that he can withdraw items, or not let them be sold, if they look like going for less than their value. He fails, in my opinion, in his professional duty if he sells an item too cheaply. This, indeed, is what he is paid for. This is why he receives a fee of 5 per cent., to sell a thing at its proper value. If he fails, it is then, and only

then, that the knock-out and the price ring can function.
It has been said that it is the fault of the vendor if he sells his goods too cheaply. Ever since Esau sold his birthright for a mess of potage this has happened. Doubtless a ring was operating at that time. I do not believe that it is the fault of the vendor. I believe that it is, in fact, the fault of the auctioneer, because that is what he is professionally in business to do—to ensure that goods go for approximately their correct value. No solicitor may practise who constantly defrauds his clients, either through ignorance or through No architect may practise whose buildings fall down. He is stopped from participating in his profession in future.
In fact, all professional men are required to pass certain standards for the protection of their clients, the public who come to them for advice and guidance. I do not see why this should not apply to auctioneers as well. If they sell things under value, all that happens is that the price ring will operate and people will move in and make, so to speak, a killing of the margin between the price at which things are sold and the price which they should have fetched.
All that is needed at present is an annual licence costing £10 to practise the profession of auctioneer. The Bill which I would bring in is designed to ensure that auctioneers in future are registered with a statutory council without membership of which they would not be able to practise. They are now, under the 1845 Act, forced to register and to obtain a licence for £10, but there are no conditions attached to their practising. There is, it is true, a Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, but it is not a statutory body and it has no powers of discipline over its members.
My Bill would also provide rules by which auctioneers and those who practise the profession would be asked to abide. I am certain that this should outlaw completely the practice of private auctions. Any auction which takes place should take place in public, and this will certainly be an extra weapon for those who are fighting against the secret price rings. Secondly, I believe that the rules should ensure that every auctioneer


employs qualified valuers, valuers qualified in the goods which they are attempting to sell; no auctioneer who may be qualified to sell cattle should be allowed to sell old masters, and no auctioneer who is qualified to sell land should be allowed to sell jewellery unless he has the specialised valuation knowledge at his disposal to do so. There must be some auctioneers—indeed, I know that there are—who are not competent to sell across the whole field. It is these who should be restricted to the areas of sale where they have the specialised knowledge.
Lastly, I believe that we should have a rule that when a lot does not reach its reserve no commission is chargeable. This would help to encourage people to put a proper reserve on their goods and to encourage auctioneers to get a proper price for what they are selling. I think that this is know in ancient parlance as "puff-bidding", whereby a lot is withdrawn before it reaches its reserve. As far as I understand it, some auctioneers charge if goods are knocked down below the reserve price and others do not. I suggest that it should be made one of the rules of the trade that no charge is made where goods do not reach the reserve price.
My attempt to bring in the Bill is no derogation of Christie's, Sotheby's and the other many famous auctioneers in this country who have brought us much trade and enjoy renown and hallowed reputations. It is, rather, to bring all the other auctioneers up to the same high standards that I beg leave to introduce the Bill, which, I am sure the whole House will agree, will be an important addition in the hands of the authorities who wish to fight against the price rings.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ridley, Mr. Abse, Mr. Chichester-Clark, Mr. Anthony Royle, and Sir John Vaughan-Morgan.

AUCTIONEERS REGISTRATION

Bill to provide for the registration of auctioneers; to regulate the conduct of persons carrying on business as auctioneers; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 21st May and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

PRIVILEGE

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Ashfield on 22nd February, 1965, regarding certain publications be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Sir, you will be aware, as will the House generally, that the Motion is not in the terms in which I had originally tabled it and thought to move it. I changed the form because it was brought to my attention that some right hon. and hon. Members thought that the terms of the Motion might seek to beg the question which the House was being called upon to decide. This was not my intention. What I had in mind was that one has no right to ask that a matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges unless what one complains of raises a prima facie case.
All I had in mind, in tabling the Motion in its original form, was to indicate what the prima facie case was. I quite recognise that, if exception is taken to it, the point can equally well, or probably better and more appropriately, be made during the course of the discussion. Therefore, I substituted for it the present Motion, which raises no issue at all, except the issue whether there is something here that the Committee of Privileges ought to be asked to investigate.
I want to begin by indicating the spirit in which the Motion is moved. We are all public figures. We are all, by reason of the very fact of our election here, in some sense representative of bodies, of constituents, and of opinion. It is inevitable and right that what we do and say in our capacity as Members of the House of Commons should be subject to review, subject to comment, subject to criticism. We have no right whatever to complain of that review, of that comment, of that criticism, even though the criticism be, as it very often is, ruthless and relentless.
All this, like the general question of free speech, is subject to conditions. The conditions of free speech are not modifications of it, or denigrations of it, or limitations of it. They are the conditions which are accepted as being vital if free speech is really to be free and not a mere mockery.
This is true not merely of the House of Commons, it is true of the freedom of the Press, it is true of the general freedom of speech. One of these conditions is that the comment shall be fair, and one of the conditions that it is fair shall be that it does not, except for very adequate reasons indeed, impugn the good faith, impugn the honour, or impugn the integrity of the person who has been attacked and criticised.
I quite accept that I am not entitled to ask the House to refer my hon. Friend's complaint to the Committee of Privilege unless it can be shown—only prima facie, we are not deciding the issue here—that
prima facie there is an attack upon his honour, an attack upon his good faith and an attack upon his integrity. This I shall endeavour to do.
Again, before coming to the bones of the matter, I should like to make another preliminary comment. It is that we are all subject to the normal temptations of controversy. We are all convinced that our own party and our own group of political opinion is right and that every other group of political opinion is wrong. We all regard it as a duty to persuade people generally outside the House that our views are right and that other views are wrong, and accompanying that duty is the constant temptation to impugn the honour, good faith and integrity of hon. Members who disagree with us.
I recall too many speeches of that kind. One was made, a most unfortunate speech, on 6th March by—and I hope you will not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I say it—the craven Leader of the Opposition. I use the word "craven" because it was his word, but I am sure that, on reflection, he would think that it was an unwise word to use. He is quite entitled to criticise the action of my hon. Friends and myself in putting down Motions critical perhaps of the Government, certainly of other countries, and of comments on international affairs which are fraught with the utmost peril, in certain circumstances, to the peace of the world. Let him attack us if he thinks we are wrong. He is entitled to attack us ruthlessly and relentlessly, but in advancing these propositions we are no more craven than he is in opposing them, and he does not do his case the slightest good by imputing motives, inadequacies or faults of charac-

ter of that kind. It would be much stronger from his point of view if he attacked the arguments and left it at that, leaving people alone.
I am inviting the House not to say that my hon. Friend was right, that the charge is made out, or, even if the charge is made out that it was justified or not justified. I am only inviting the House to say that no fair-minded Member can read the matter complained of and not agree that on one interpretation it is capable of being such an attack as my hon. Friend complains of. If it is so capable it would follow inevitably, in accordance with the time-honoured practice of the House, that we should not try to debate it on the Floor of the House in the first instance, but that we should refer it to the Committee of Privilege and if, subsequently, we have to debate it, then debate it in the light of any report that the Committee may make. It seems to me that so far what I have said would not be regarded as seriously controversial in any quarter of the House.
Let us come to the complaint. It will he found in columns 42 to 44 of HANSARD of 22nd February. I do not propose to reread the whole of it. I propose to reread some of it and to intersperse a comment here and there as I do so. What is complained of is a passage in the Spectator of 19th February, 1965. The editor of the Spectator is the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I very greatly regret that he is not in his place. He must have known that the debate was to take place. He must have know that the complaint is, in part, a complaint about him, and I should have thought that he would have been better advised to come here and at least hear what was said about it, whether or not he replied to it.
There is just another point which, I think, it is fair to make in that connection. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West was for some years Leader of the House. As Leader of the House he accepted and discharged—and, certainly, I do not complain of the way he did it—the responsibility of looking after the rights of Members of the House on both sides. In this sense the Leader of the House is not a party figure. He is a party figure in many respects. I need not waste time by going into them,


for they are clear to everybody, but in the matter of seeing that every Member of the House is reasonably protected in his legitimate activity as a Member of the House he is responsible for all Members and not merely from his party point of view.
If there is anything wrong with this article, if it offends against what is rightly said or may fairly be said with regard to the conduct of another Member, there is no hon. or right hon. Member who knows the circumstances, who knows what is right and wrong about it better than the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. Indeed, if he had been here and if he had said, "Whatever the words may appear to mean, I had no intention whatever of attacking the good faith, honour and integrity of the hon. Member for Ashfield", I think that many of us would have been inclined to accept that from him and feel that to be the end of the matter.
If the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "I do not like what he did, but, of course, he did it in all good faith, of course, he did it in all honour and, of course, his integrity was not in any way impugned by it, and I did not intend for a moment to suggest that it was", we need not have troubled the House any more. But he is not here to say it and there is no other hon. or right hon. Member who is entitled to say it for him.
The first part of the article said that, when my hon. Friend arrived in North Vietnam, he was met by the secretary-general of the Central Committee of the Vietnam Fatherland and other members of that body. No doubt, that is a mere question of fact and no comment need be made about it. We see what comments are made subsequently in the article, but, if it had stopped there, nobody would have complained.
The article goes on:
For the next ten days they"—
that means my hon. Friend and his wife—
stayed at the Thong Nhat Hotel as guests of the Front. In the course of a television programme (Dateline, February 9), Mr. Warbey himself confirmed that his hotel expenses had been paid by the Vietnam Fatherland Front

Again, that is a mere question of fact. My hon. Friend has always confirmed it and has said so. If the article had stopped there, if no adverse comment had been made upon it, it might not have been in the very best taste—that is a matter of opinion, as questions of taste always are—but it would not have raised any question of privilege.
Let us see what comments were attached to it, and whether directly or indirectly is not material provided that the comments were made with regard to the admitted fact that my hon. Friend's expenses were paid by the Fatherland Front.
Now, the Vietnam Fatherland Front is a Communist 'front' organisation formed and financed by the Communist regime in North Vietnam, so that it is hard to understand how Mr. Warbey can reconcile his membership of the British Labour Party with his acceptance of the hospitality of such a body.
There is the first faint—I admit faint—but quite real and significant accusation or suggestion of bad faith, that he ought not to have done it because he was a member of the Labour Party and that what he did was irreconcilable with being a member of the Labour Party and to that extent, therefore, was an act of disloyalty to the Labour Party.
There is no foundation for any such suggestion. If it were an act of bad faith in any way to be the guest of a Communist regime, or a Communist party behind a Communist regime, it would equally be so to be the guests, for instance, of a Nazi or a Fascist regime, yet hon. Members on both sides of the House, during the past 30 years, have done it and done it repeatedly. Many hon. and right hon. Members—I do not know whether any survive now, but at the time there were many—accepted invitations by Hitler and were Hitler's guests in inspecting the achievements of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939.
I am not suggesting that this was confined to one side of the House. It was not. It was done on both sides. The point that I make is that no one ever took any exception to it. Nobody ever said that a man's integrity was involved. Nobody ever said that, if a man accepted an invitation of that kind and then came back to the House and expressed opinions for or against the Nazi régime


in Germany, his opinion was being improperly influenced by the hospitality which he had received. We never thought of making such an accusation, and, if we had made such an accusation, we should certainly have been subject to complaints of breach of privilege, for breach of privilege it would plainly have been.
But it is not only that. There is Italy, there is Spain, there is Egypt, the latter comparatively recent times. It seems to me that I ought to carry, and I expect that I shall carry, right hon. and hon. Members with me when I say that it is part of a Member's duty to find out for himself what is going on in respect of matters for which he accepts responsibility in the House as a Member. If the circumstances are such that he cannot do it without accepting hospitality, perhaps from people whose hospitality he would rather do without if he could, this is part of the game, part of the job, something which is inevitably involved.
I see sitting opposite an hon. Member who was in strong difference with his own party and his own Government at the time of Suez. He went out and accepted hospitality, as he was bound to do—he could not have collected his information otherwise—and came back with that information and gave it to the House. No one ever suggested that his integrity had been impeached or impaired by that. Of course not.

Mr. William Yates: indicated assent.

Mr. Silverman: It is part of the function of Members of Parliament, if they are discharging their duties with care and diligence, as we should all like to do, though, perhaps, we do not always succeed in doing it.
If people who do that, doing what they are not really entitled to do but what is, in a sense, their duty to do, cannot do it without having muck like this thrown at them, our capacity adequately to perform our duties, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, will be seriously impaired, and it is for this reason that I say that, if there is such a serious suggestion, even though it be no more than a suggestion, it is right and proper that the Committee of Privi-

leges should inquire into it and report to the House on whether there has been a contempt of Parliament or not.
I am sorry to take a little longer than I intended, but I must deal with the matter adequately, though not for too long, I hope. I have dealt with the point about my hon. Friend's difficulty of reconciling membership of the British Labour Party with his acceptance of that hospitality. The article goes on:
His trip appears more puzzling still in view of the fact that North Vietnam is at the present time directing and supplying armed aggression against a friendly state, South Vietnam"—
South Vietnam, of course, is not a State, but I shall not pause to argue that—
and is responsible for the killing of both South Vietnamese and Americans. Moreover, North Vietnam has repeatedly expressed its wholehearted support for Indonesian aggression against a Commonwealth country, Malaysia, in a war in which British soldiers are being killed.
I do not for a moment say, though I do not share it, that this is not legitimate criticism. It may be legitimate criticism which my hon. Friend would, no doubt, be glad to have the opportunity of answering. It is only if this criticism appears to be founded upon an attack on his integrity that a question of privilege arises, and when we turn to the next column we see that this is clearly said:
Mr. Warbey brought back to this country in his baggage a Vietnamese Communist propaganda film, part of which has already been shown on B.B.C. television.
How terrible that is!
He himself has not been idle since his arrival in London for he has published a long letter to The Times and two articles in The Guardian about Vietnam. In addition, he has appeared in three television programmes … and has spoken in sound broadcasts in the B.B.C. General Overseas Service. He is among the Labour M.P.s"—
this is the final charge—
who tabled a Motion in the House of Commons on 10th February to bring pressure on their leaders to change present British policy on Vietnam.
This, of course, is perfectly true, and no complaint is made of it, and no complaint is made of criticism in relation to it, but when it is attached to statements that he went there and received hospitality, and that his receiving the hospitality is puzzling, and that it is not merely puzzling but is irreconcilable


with his duties as a British Labour Member of Parliament, and that he brought in his luggage Vietnamese Communist propaganda, surely it is perfectly clear that the innuendo is that he would not, or may not have, done any of these things, or some of them, except because he had received that hospitality. It is not I who am connecting the hospitality with my hon. Friend's political activities as a Member of the House of Commons. It was the Spectator article which did that, and it is just that which forms the basis of the complaint.
My hon. Friend went on at the bottom of column 43 to say for himself what it was he objected to. I invite right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to say that he was perfectly right at any rate to the extent of raising a question which it would be proper for the Committee of Privileges to investigate.
I am quoting now from my hon. Friend's complaint:
The passages which I complain of, by innuendo and insinuation and the false assotion of ideas, are likely to convey the impression, and appear intended to convey the impression, that because I have received hospitality from a foreign Government or political organisation, in the course of travelling abroad to obtain information for use in parliamentary debates I am not a witness of truth, but a bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, cc. 43–44.]
I would have invited the right hon. Member for Enfield, West to say whether this charge is one that he intended to make. I should have thought that it cannot be very difficult to deny that this was in his mind. If it was not in his mind, why the reference to who paid my hon. Friend's expenses? Why was it made at all? Why were all these comments and criticisms appended to the statement of fact that his expenses were paid unless it was to suggest that there was some kind of association between them, and if it was intended to suggest an association between them, then that is an attack on my hon. Friend and on every hon. Member whoever finds himself or has found himself in that position, and amounts to a contempt of the House.
The Committee of Privileges has recently reported to the House that it was a gross contempt of the House for an hon. Member to say that a group of undefined Members were half drunk. If

it is a gross contempt to say that a group of unnamed Members were half drunk, it is difficult to see why it is not a breach of privilege to say that an hon. Member who is named is half corrupt. I see no escape from the proposition that it is something which ought to be investigated by the Committee of Privileges, and if we hesitate to do it, and if we fight this on party lines, if we argue it as a party debate, if, in the end, we divide according to party differences, we shall ourselves be betraying the dignity and functions of the House of Commons.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) explained the reasons why he changed the terms of his Motion, and I think that we fully accept the validity of those reasons. We all listened to his speech with keen attention because he is a very experienced Parliamentarian. For all that, frankly, I do not think that his speech led to the conclusion that he desires, and it did not affect my view that this is a clear case and should be disposed of as quickly as possible by negativing the Motion.
I entirely agree that it is a House of Commons matter and not a party matter, and so far as we are concerned there is a genuinely free vote on the subject. In any advice that I may give to the House I speak in the interests of the House of Commons and not for a party or against an individual, although I have from time to time crossed swords dialectically with the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey).
I think that most of us are proud to be Members of the House, and that the longer one is in it the greater one's affection for it becomes. In spite of strenuous party differences, there is a sense of companionship and comradeship without which this place would not work. Notwithstanding that pride in our membership of this place, it would be a gross mistake for us to put our privileges too high.
We have certain rights of great antiquity—such as freedom of access, freedom of speech and freedom from arrest or molestation—but I think that we should very much beware of seeking to extend those privileges or to widen the interpretation of them. We should be


particularly unwise to seek to extend them so as to curtail or prevent criticism or comment. I do not think that anything is more likely to affect for the worse the reputation and standing of the House than that sort of conduct on our part.
Sometimes—the hon. Member referred to one—there are imputations made against unnamed Members, general imputations, and the House is very sensitive about them because they smear the House as a whole and there is no other remedy easily pursuable than to raise such imputations as breaches of privilege. Even then, I think that Mr. Speaker's Ruling on the article in The Times in 1887 is still the established rule.
The rule is that when imputations are made, in order to raise a case of privilege the imputations must refer to the actions of hon. Members in the discharge of their duties in the actual transaction of the business of the House.
I think that by case law that has been widened to include behaviour within the precincts. That is why the drunkenness and bribery cases are covered by that Ruling.
But when we come to an alleged imputation against a particular named Member, I think that the rule should be just as strict, or possibly stricter, because the hon. Member has other remedies. If he thinks that his character has been impugned, he has remedies open to him at law. The personality of the hon. Member concerned is completely irrelevant. Whether his views are popular or not does not matter. Indeed, the fact that his view may be the view of a minority inclines me more to sympathise with him than the contrary. The character of the Member concerned, or the views that he takes, whether we sympathise with them or not, is not the material matter.
The point is whether there has been a contempt of the House. With respect, the Leader of the House indicated, when he said he would give time for the Motion, that the honour of the hon. Member had been impugned and, therefore, the Motion ought to be got rid of as quickly as possible. I do not think that that is the issue. I think that it is a question whether it is contempt of the House, whether the honour of the House is concerned in the matter. I think that that is the more correct view of privilege.
The law, and, I think, the practice was stated very clearly in a recent case which came before the Committee of Privilege in the last Parliament, and the fact that it was set out so clearly then is one of the reasons why I ask the House to dispose of this matter today. In paragraphs 7 and 8, the Committee of Privileges reported its unanimous finding:
Your Committee recognise that it is the duty of the House to deal with such reflections upon Members as tend, or may tend, to undermine public respect for and confidence in the House itself as an institution. But they think that when the effect of particular imputations is under consideration, regard must be had to the importance of preserving freedom of speech in matters of political controversy and also, in cases of ambiguity, to the intention of the speaker. It seems to them particularly important that the law of Parliamentary privilege should not, except in the clearest case, be invoked so as to inhibit or discourage the formation and free expression of opinion outside the House by Members equally with other citizens in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation.
It has long been accepted that neither House of Parliament has any power to create new privileges. Your Committee believe that it would be contrary to the interest of the House and of the public to widen the interpretation of its privileges especially in matters affecting freedom of speech. Your Committee and the House are not concerned with setting standards for political controversy or for the propriety, accuracy or taste of speeches made on public platforms outside Parliament. They are concerned only with the protection of the reputation, the character and the good name of the House itself. It is in that respect only and for that limited purpose that they are concerned with imputations against the conduct of individual Members.
That is a straightforward and clear statement of the law and practice in these matters. That is why I suggest that the House should deal with this case at once and negative the Motion.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). I think that it is in accordance with tradition and practice that my right hon. Friend should not take part in the debate or in the vote. I understand from him—and he has authorised me to say so—that he accepts full editorial responsibility for the passage complained of, although he did not write it himself. It was written by Mr. P. J. Honey, lecturer in Vietnamese at the School of Oriental Studies, London University, and one of the leading authorities on Vietnam in this country.
It is fair to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend had to say in the following issue of The Spectator:
If I may follow Voltaire, I detest Mr. Warbey's opinions, but I would defend to the death his right to express them.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: That passage was, of course, published after my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) had made his complaint to the House. Would it not have been very much better if the right hon. Member for Enfield, West had been here to say it in the House today?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I think that it is more in accordance with traditional practice for my right hon. Friend to absent himself from the proceedings.
I do not think that anyone has disputed the accuracy of the facts stated. They depend upon a clear statement by the hon. Member for Ashfield himself. His frankness does him credit in what he said about the circumstances under which he went to North Vietnam. My point is that the practice of hon. Members travelling abroad at the expense of other Governments or other bodies or other individuals has been commented on many times before. This is not a new business.
I have been looking through some records and have read statements. Indeed, I have here an article which the Prime Minister himself wrote in 1961, with regard to "Voice and Vision". He suggested that it was very sinister indeed that hon. Members should go to Rhodesia under the auspices of "Voice and Vision", said to be acting on behalf of Sir Roy Welensky's Administration. The right hon. Gentleman said that the sponsorship of conducted tours by selected Members of Parliament was to be deprecated. He was very censorious about it and made reference to
…similar activities on behalf of certain overseas arms interests…".
That was a sinister suggestion to make, but no one suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should go to the Clock Tower for it.
In May, 1961, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) said in a letter in the Sunday Telegraph:
As someone who has travelled fairly extensively in recent years since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have reluctantly come to the

conclusion, after experience, that it is usually better not to do so on sponsored trips rather than face invidious difficulties.
The present Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), stated in the same issue of the Sunday Telegraph:
A few months ago I went on a 'Voice and Vision' tour. I visited all three territories in the Central African Federation and took part in 35 meetings with various groups that included Sir Roy Welensky, Sir Edgar Whitehead, Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and others.* The trip did not make me a colonial expert but it enabled me to speak and vote in the House of Commons on some of the problems facing the Federation with more knowledge than I could have gained in London.
There have been articles and discussions on this issue again and again. Views have been put forward one way or another. The most recent letter on the matter which I have seen was from Mr. Percy Collick, who was then the hon. Member for Birkenhead. He wrote to The Guardian on 22nd July last:
Comments made by a group of Members of Parliament on their return from Vienna are reported, including the statement that the visit was organised by the Roads Campaign Council. Is it not time that Members of Parliament refused to allow themselves to take on foreign trips organised by such bodies as that named which exist to serve their own vested interests?
These accusations have been bandied back and forth. I have sympathy with those who go on these tours. It is not possible for the Government—and I held this view when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer—to produce funds for travel on the scale that hon. Members want. One must trust hon. Members to retain their integrity, but it is a matter for legitimate comment—and legitimate comment has been made on it over the years.

Dr. David Kerr: In so far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted from articles, it is not clear to me, as I have not read them recently, whether the quotations are truly analogous. It appears, however, that none of them makes a specific reference to an hon. Member such as that complained of by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) and that, therefore, the analogy is not a fair one to argue. It would help if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were more specific in his quotations from articles.
* Note: For correction, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1965, col. 750.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The matter under discussion is that the judgment and opinions of a Member of Parliament might be affected by the person who gives hospitality to him. That is the theme running through all these articles and discussions. I think that the worst insinuation was the one made by the Prime Minister when he talked about "sinister arms interests". That is the most sinister insinuation in all these leaders, letters and articles that I have seen about his subject.
My point is that this has been a matter of public controversy throughout the years. Allegations have been made backward and forward and I take the same view as the hon. Member for Greenwich—that, by this kind of foreign tour, hon. Members are enabled to get experience they would not otherwise get and that one must rely upon them to maintain their integrity.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that The Times itself, in a leading article, suggested that the practice of hon. Members going overseas at the expense of other organisations or Governments might lead to corruption?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: And no one really suggested that the editor of The Times should go the Clock Tower because of that.
To magnify this sort of thing into a deliberate and unequivocal direct attack upon hon. Members' good faith, integrity and loyalty is really to do no service to Parliament. If the article in the Spectator is defamatory, the hon. Member for Ashfield has his remedy. I do not think that it is a matter for the House.

Mr. William Warbey: rose—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I must be allowed to make my speech.

Mr. Warbey: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the courtesy to give way?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have given way about four times already.

Mr. Warbey: I do not wish to intervene in the debate at any length, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or another hon. Member, makes statements which are inaccurate or misleading to the House, I reserve the right to

intervene. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice said that I have a remedy in this case in the law courts outside.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Warbey: He has suggested that I have.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly suggested that in this case I, as an individual being attacked, have a remedy in the law courts outside. I want to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that I took advice on this point and was very firmly advised that, because of the wording of the matter complained of, and because of the possible defence that no malice was intended, it would be extremely difficult indeed to make any case at all which would be acceptable in the courts.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman really must—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. So that we shall not be misled into paths which are nothing to do with this matter, would you not say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it was right to say that the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield is being made in court now, the High Court of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): That is a point of argument and not of order.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have tried to be scrupulously fair to the hon. Member for Ashfield. What I said was that if it was defamatory—I do not suspect that he would very much value my opinion as a lawyer, and an opinion given free is worth exactly what is paid for it, but I do not think that it is defamatory—the hon. Gentleman has the right of action in the courts to defend his honour.
If one goes into public life, surely it is inevitable that, whatever one's profession, whatever one's occupation, whatever one's interests, whatever one's hobbies, someone will say that one is biased by reason thereof in this issue or that. It is foolish to be too sensitive.
The argument is put forward that this was a visit in the discharge of parliamentary duties in order to equip the hon.


Member better to play his part in the House. That appears in column 44 of the HANSARD of the day on which he made his complaint. Where does one draw the line? If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House goes on holiday, I suppose that he goes to recover from the strain of leading the House and to recruit his energy better to lead the House of Commons. If a Member goes to the theatre, it can be said that he does so to broaden his mind in order to be a better Member of the House of Commons, etc., etc. The decision of 1887 is very good guidance to the House, both as to general imputations and particular ones.
The kernel of my opposition to the Motion is that if it were to be passed, whatever happened subsequently, it would be regarded as an attempt by Parliament to interfere with freedom of comment in the Press, on the television or radio, on the public platform wherever it might be, to interfere with freedom of comment on the actions of Members of Parliament who, by seeking and accepting membership of this place, have laid themselves open to comment, to criticism, to ridicule, to satire; in good or bad taste, ruthless or relentless, it matters not.
By coming here, hon. Members open themselves to comment of that sort, but, in fact, this is the kind of comment upon which the free functioning of a democracy completely depends. I ask the House to negative the Motion.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) invited the House to throw out the Motion, saying that if it were passed it would injure the rights of free speech and free discussion in the country. I propose to say something further on that very important aspect of the matter in a moment, but, first, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others to reflect that if the Motion is passed the consequences which he has described will not necessarily occur. If the Motion is passed, the decision as to whether a breach of privilege has been committed by the Spectator will still not be determined. That will be determined by the Committee of Privileges itself.
Therefore, on this occasion the House is not being invited to pass a final judgment on the article in the Spectator, or the other articles of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) is complaining. What the House is invited to do by the Motion is to accept that the position may be on all fours with the many other references which have been made to the Committee of Privileges, some of which have been accepted as breaches of privilege and some of which have been determined not to be. The consequences to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman appealed in order to deter Members from voting for the Motion do not apply.
However, on the general matter, all of us, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and myself and many others, have exactly the feelings which the right hon. and learned Gentleman described about the dangers of invoking privilege in improper cases. There are many instances in Parliamentary history when privilege has been used not to defend but to injure freedom, and throughout most of the eighteenth century privilege was invoked by the House of Commons in a manner which interfered with the right of free debate and free discussion throughout the country at large. Certainly, in approaching all questions of privilege we should be extremely reluctant about resorting to this weapon at all.
I do not think that there is any difference between myself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who are equally concerned to protect the area of free debate and the right to print in the country, and I have a vested interest in the matter—I declare my interest. I would be quite happy—I would not shed too many tears—if privilege were wiped. out altogether, if the whole idea were abolished. We might gain more on the swings than we would lose on the roundabouts, and we might gain more in Fleet Street than we would lose in the House of Commons, so I could bear it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced that proposition in his flights of enthusiasm for freedom this afternoon, I would have been happy to support him.
However, if we are to abolish privilege, let us not do it selectively. Let us wipe it out for the whole lot. Do not let


us have one day when we are told that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), who was recently before the Committee of Privileges, has committed the most heinous offence which could be denounced and, on the following day, throw out a complaint against a member of the Front Bench, a complaint of a character which I would have thought on any grounds and on any estimation was more serious than the complaint against my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.
Do not let us have one complaint accepted and the other thrown out. That would be most unfair. That would be merely applying selective discrimination which would be a greater interference with freedom. [An HON. MEMBER: "Mr. Speaker decides whether it is prima facie."] We do not always have to agree with Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members should get out of the habit of believing that Mr. Speaker is infallible, or that even that Mr. Deputy-Speaker is infallible. The House of Commons has rights over its Speaker. I am sure that all too often hon. Members are inclined to think that they have to accept everything that he says. All he does is to give a preliminary view. He says that he thinks there is a prima facie case. However, I can say to your face, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Speakers often make mistakes in these matters and that some of us try to put them on the right lines when they have gone astray.
In a sense, that is what we are trying to do today, although Mr. Speaker himself never said, and went out of his way to emphasise, that he was not saying that the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was not a breach of privilege. He merely exercised the restricting duties which are conferred on him as Speaker in this respect.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Mr. Speaker says whether there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend supports my by saying that Mr. Speaker, on all such occasions, says whether there is a prima facie case; and the House has the remedy if it thinks that the matter should be referred to the Committee.
Let me deal with another point which seemed to be a main part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He referred to this invidious question of the forms of hospitality which it is proper

for hon. Members to accept when they travel abroad, or elsewhere, for that matter. Although I do not often agree with The Times, I think that there is something in the argument which it used. The whole question of the facilities which hon. Members have when they travel abroad or the auspices under which they travel can give rise to great difficulties. In my opinion, there should be a special provision whereby the House of Commons paid for all these matters so that all these invidious difficulties never arose. If we are to apply a new rule in this matter, we cannot do it selectively; we must do it all round.
If we had a system under which every hon. Member, whenever he travelled abroad, had to make it clear and public who was paying his expenses, it might be a very interesting innovation. I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite would be as eager that that should happen as we on this side would be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are extremely awkward and delicate questions involved. Speaking personally—I do not make any virtue of it—I have never had any expenses paid by any foreign Power in the whole period that I have been a Member of Parliament. It may be because I have not received any invitations; and I am not asking for invitations.
It would, however, be better if we could have a system whereby Members of Parliament, when they travelled to foreign countries, were able to recoupe their expenses out of a general pool. That would avoid all these difficulties. But, unfortunately, that system does not yet prevail, and until it prevails it is unavoidable that some hon. or right hon. Members, when they travel to other parts of the world, will have to accept hospitality from foreign Governments or foreign organisations.

Mr. William Yates: Neither the House of Commons nor the taxpayer would pay into this fund if, as happened during last year, we had only two foreign affairs debates a year. In this Session we have not yet had a foreign affairs debate.

Mr. Foot: I have sympathy with the hon. Member's point, despite its total irrelevance to what we are discussing.
There are much more recent examples of invitations which have been accepted


from foreign countries and the payments which have been made than those in the list which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House in the past three or four weeks have been to East Germany to participate in the Leipzig Fair. Their expenses will have been paid by a Communist Government. Nobody, as far as I know, has suggested that the activities of any of those hon. Members were injuriously affected by this having occurred.
But, in the case of the Spectator article, exactly that charge on exactly those grounds is made against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. So it causes a slight difference in the case. Therefore, when an accusation is made that, because of the acceptance of hospitality from a foreign Government or foreign organisation, a Member of Parliament impairs his right to act as a Member in this House, it is a serious accusation, whatever remedy people may say it is right to take about it. The accusation contained in the article is a serious one, and I do not see how anybody honestly reading it can doubt that a grave charge was made against my hon. Friend and that a grave charge was intended. Because a grave charge was made, and intended, it does not necessarily mean, on the previous argument which I and others have stated, that resort to the Committee of Privileges is the right way to deal with it. There are other ways of dealing with it, and let us see what they are.
There is the remedy of resort to the courts. If it were true that the statement made in the Spectator was defamatory of my hon. Friend, almost certainly the charge is a breach of privilege. We may dislike the broad nature of the question of privilege, but almost certainly that would be the case.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Prima facie not.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Prima facie not ". But if the statement was in law defamatory of my hon. Friend so that he might have been able to recover considerable damages—it is extremely likely; I have not said that it is certain—it would constitute a breach of privilege.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Surely it depends entirely whether it comes within the 1887 Ruling.

Mr. Foot: The 1887 Ruling was about transactions in the House.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In this exchange it is being forgotten that part of the charge against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was his signing a Motion which appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. It was an attack on what he did in a proceeding of Parliament.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He has taken the words out of my mouth and made them more concise and elegant in the process.
I should have thought that certainly the matter would come within the ambit of privilege on those grounds, but if, in addition, it was shown in the courts that this accusation were defamatory, I should have thought that almost certainly it came within the ambit of privilege.
But there was another remedy open to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Write an article in Tribune.

Mr. Foot: We have been glad on many occasions to have had articles from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, and I hope that we will have many more.
I think that there is a great deal to be said for this argument. Here was an argumentative attack on my hon. Friend in the Spectator. It may be said by hon. Members, "If there is an attack, the hon. Gentleman should not be too thin skinned about it. Instead of resorting to privilege, why did he not just write an answer himself? Why did he not take the matter up with the editor of the Spectator and say, 'May I send a reply'? Or why did he not make a general statement saying, 'This is my general reply'?" I see that I carry some hon. Members opposite with me. They think that this would have been a better way of dealing with the matter. That would have avoided, perhaps, any reference to the question of privilege.
But that is exactly the course which my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field took. He did not buy the Spectator that Thursday. He first heard about the


matter when many other newspapers rang him up and said, "What do you say about all these charges made against you in the Spectator?" He said, "I have not read them yet. I will look at them and tell you what I think". Several other people rang him up. Let it be noted that the journalists from the other newspapers who rang him up so swiftly thought that the article constituted a fierce attack on him. That is why they asked for a reply. They said, "What comments have you to make?"
Therefore, my hon. Friend issued a reply which he sent to the Exchange Telegraph on the Friday morning following the publication of the Spectator. That was within a few hours of the Spectator being published and of my hon. Friend being rung up by several newspapers. My hon. Friend issued a reply to Exchange Telegraph. He has shown me the reply, in which he replied In strong terms, as he had every right to do, to the attack which had been made upon him. It may very well have been that if that reply had been published by Exchange Telegraph the matter might have been settled there and then—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: And in the Spectator.

Mr. Foot: —and if the reply could have been published later by the Spectator, too.
What happened was that Exchange Telegraph, which had circulated on its files and its lines the attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield in the Spectator, did not circulate the reply which my hon. Friend sent. He had given it to the people who had circulated the attack upon him, as he was entitled to do.
My hon. Friend did not, therefore, rush to the House of Commons for protection in privilege. He sought to reply to what he regarded, and what many others might regard, as an attempt of character assassination against him by the editor of the Spectator. He sought to reply to the arguments and to get them published.
The reply was not published, partly because of the brilliant state of our libel laws, which the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral is so eager to defend,

because the Exchange Telegraph said, "We are not sure whether we can publish attacks upon the editor of the Spectator like that". Those may not be the exact words, but that was the meaning. Here was my hon. Friend, having been attacked in the Spectator in this manner, attempting to reply by issuing his reply to the Press, but finding that his reply was completely suppressed.
But that is not all that happened. During the next two or three days, in my hon. Friend's constituency, many other papers, including the Daily Telegraph, which he cited to the House and many other people were obviously seeking to stir up the issue. My hon. Friend then decided that he should come to the House of Commons and ask whether the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I say this in response and in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, who said that my hon. Friend had other remedies. My hon. Friend sought to use the other remedies to issue a reply, but he did not succeed in getting anything published on that basis. [Interruption.] By the time that Tribune was published, which was the following week, the matter had been raised here. If they had the idea that my hon. Friend should have left the matter for a week when these attacks were continuing to be made upon him and when he found that what he attempted to circulate on a general Press distribution line was not circulated, hon. Members are not looking at the facts properly.
These facts that I have recited briefly are not by any means the full story. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield asked for was the right to be able to state these facts, which he knows in detail much better than anybody else, before the Committee of Privileges. He was asking that that Committee should be able to judge what had happened and whether he had behaved correctly in the matter. That is what would have occurred if the Motion had been accepted originally and it is what will occur if today's Motion is accepted.

Sir John Rodgers: Will the hon. Member say whether his hon. Friend, in addition to circulating his reply to Exchange Telegraph, also sent it to the Daily Worker the very next day?

Mr. Foot: That is the kind of smear we are trying to deal with in this debate. [Interruption.] The intervention was not made for the purpose of elucidating the facts. It was made for the purpose of injuring my hon. Friend's character. That was its purpose. The hon. Member should have the courtesy to withdraw.

Mr. Warbey: May I elucidate the facts on this one point? The interview with me which appeared in the Daily Worker was totally different from the statement to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has referred. [Laughter.]

Mr. Foot: I do not know what hon. Members find so extremely comic about it. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was asking the House to do, following the circumstances which I have indicated, and what he was asking the Committee of Privileges should do, was to examine all the facts and that the Committee of Privileges could examine all the facts it wanted. That appeal has so far been denied to my hon. Friend. If today's Motion were to be rejected, that right would be denied to him again. It would be a gross injustice to my hon. Friend if that right were to be denied.
Hon. Members affect to think that this may be a comic issue. Some of them have talked as if no very serious charge was contained in the article and that the matter could be swept aside easily. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne suggests, there are bound to be two or more opinions about what the article is intended to say. Reading the article myself, I cannot see any other purpose in it except to make an accusation of corruption or half-corruption against my hon. Friend. That is the purpose of it. The purpose of it is to suggest in some way or other that my hon. Friend's views are such that he is not serving the interest that he purports to serve and that the fact that he took money from a foreign organisation affects this situation. That is what the article says.
Of course the article does not say it outright. That is one of the dirty things about it. Had the article said, "I accuse the hon. Member for Ashfield of being a mere traitor, or being a partisan of subversive activities", to use the delicate phrase of the right hon. and learned

Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that would have been at least a little more courageous. The meaning, however, would have been the same.
In my opinion, everyone in the House understands the aim of the article. It was to smear my hon. Friend, but to smear him in such a way as would not involve the Spectator in difficulty in the courts and so that the Spectator could wriggle round any question of privilege. That was why it was done. That is not a very commendable process.
We are a bit fed up with smears of this kind. We had one the other day from the Leader of the Opposition—my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has referred to it—who said that those of us on this side who put down Motions about Vietnam constitute the craven core of the Labour Party. Another smear is in attempting to say that those of us who hold certain views on this subject are in some ways cowardly. Of course, those who say these things do not say them in the open. They dare not use the word that way. They try to get round it to make the smear.
I am very glad to see the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone present, because he, in his little way, is probably the greatest master of the smear since McCarthy. We have already had reference to the breach of privilege case of the right hon. and learned Member a few months ago. It is relevant to what we are discussing now. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to it, although he did not refer to it completely. I do not blame him for that. He was trying to illustrate his own point. I will illustrate mine.
What happened in that case was something very similar. The right hon. and learned Member made a speech in the country in which he sought to suggest that several members of the Labour Party were partisans of subversive activities. The actual words were quoted in the Report of the Committee of Privileges:
No honest person since we came into power can accuse us of pursuing a reactionary or illiberal policy. Nevertheless, our elbows have been jarred in almost every part of the world by individual Labour members' partisanship of subversive activities.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, most of us, though


not all, assumed that he was referring to some Members of the House of Commons, amongst others. I certainly did when I read the speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who raised the matter as a question of privilege, thought that, too. I do not know which hon. Members the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind. Maybe he had in mind my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, or perhaps myself, as one who had over the years been engaged in showing partisanship of subversive activities in other parts of the world. It was a very bold utterance. it was a very audacious attack by the right lion. and learned Gentleman on his opponents, accusing them of having been partisans of subversive activity in Cyprus, Kenya, and other places which he specified, and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges.
What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do when he got to the Committee of Privileges? He ran away as fast as his two legs would carry him. He would not stand by the charge. He got up in the Committee and swore on his heart, if that is what they do there—

Mr. Hogg: I never went to the Committee of Privileges at all. I wrote to the Committee, at its request. I said that what I had said was intended as a legitimate exercise of my right of free speech, and that I adhered to what I said. I said
This was intended to include a number of acts of partisanship by a number of individual members of the Labour Party who were, or who have since become, or who have been throughout, members of the House of Commons, and thus of the Parliamentary Labour Party. But my reference was not confined to these.
In other words, I repeated what I had said, and I was found not guilty.

Mr. Foot: I must correct—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—what I said in one minor and quite subordinate aspect. It is true that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not get to the Committee of Privileges, because it did not want to hear him, but it did accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite will get their answer much quicker if they listen to what I have to say. There is no question of an apology, as I shall show.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to the Committee of Privileges. I withdraw the statement that he appeared there, but it does not alter the fact that his letter to the Committee of Privileges constituted an abandonment of what he had said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his interpretation of what the Committee said. Perhaps I might refer to the Committee's Report. In paragraph 9 the Committee said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not guilty because he had abandoned his charge.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, having said boldly that the elbows of Her Majesty's Government had been jogged all over the world by the partisanship of subversive activities by members of the Labour Party, then told us, much to the amazement of everybody, that he was referring not to Members of the House of Commons. but to members of the Willesden League of Youth as having jogged the elbows of the Government all over the world.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had written to the Committee of Privileges and said, "I am making this charge of partisanship of subversive activities against Members of the House of Commons" he would not have got away with it.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what I said. I said that the words were
intended to include a number of acts of partisanship by a number of individual members of the Labour Party who were, or have since become, or who have been throughout, members of the House of Commons, and thus of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
I said that to the Committee of Privileges, and I was found not guilty.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Foot: There is nothing to withdraw at all.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we are drifting into discussing the wrong case. Perhaps the hon. Member will come back to the Motion.

Mr. Foot: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that I am entitled to quote what was said by the Committee of Privileges on the point which is before us at the moment.
The facts are that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made an accusation which, in the minds of most people, embraced Members of the House directly, but when he appeared, or when he presented his case in writing, to the Committee of Privileges, the charge was very much diminished, and this is borne out by paragraph 9 of the Report, which says:
The Lord President, in his memorandum, assured your Committee that he did not intend to refer to the Parliamentary Labour Party as such; that he was not referring to activities of any Members of Parliament within the Palace of Westminster or in their capacity as Members of Parliament; and that the phrase he had used was 'partisanship of subversive activities', by which he did not intend to convey that any Labour Member had himself engaged in any subversive activities.
That is the interpretation which the Committee of Privileges placed on the apologia which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made to it, and I say that what he was doing on that occasion—and he knows it—was engaging in the kind of grave smear which we expect from many right hon. Gentleman opposite. They are not prepared to make an open accusation, because it is conceivable that they might be had up in the courts, or that the Committee of Privileges will come down against them. Instead. they seek to advance their case by the forms of disreputable innuendo employed by the right hon. and learned Member, and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). That is how they have sought to conduct this argument.
I think that it would he better for the House of Commons, and better for public debate, if, on these matters, hon. Gentlemen opposite would make their charges openly. Let them pluck up their courage and say what they think openly. If they want to accuse us of being partisans of subversive activity, let them not say that they are referring to some unspecified people outside the House of Commons. We are here. They can name us. Let them make the charges.

Mr. Hogg: They were made.

Mr. Foot: They were not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ran away from any accusations against hon. Members of the House.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman must not say the contrary of what took place. I said that I did accuse people who had been, and who had been throughout, Members of this House as partisans of subversive activity. I did not run away from it at all. I offered to the Committee to say exactly what I meant. The Committee said that it did not want to know what I meant. It accepted what I said very quickly.

Mr. Foot: I have read to the House the verdict of the Committee of Privileges on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case. I do not think that it bears out what he says. If he is telling us the truth, and if, indeed, he meant to accuse only those people whom he informed the Committee of Privileges he intended to accuse, his charge was hardly worth making.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Is it not possible to get to the meat of the charge made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already suggested that to the two participants in the last half hour's debate.

Mr. Foot: I was illustrating the fact—and I think it is quite proper to do so—that it is not only the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, but other hon. Members opposite, including the Leader of the Conservative Party, who have sought to deal with this question other than in the open manner of making accusations against people by name, which accusations could be tested. They do not seek to argue in that fashion, or to conduct a debate in that fashion. They prefer to make general charges or sneers against individual Members which they hope cannot be tested.
I do not believe that the Committee of Privileges is the best place to settle these problems. As I said at the beginning, if the House were generally agreeable I would be prepared to wipe away a great deal of these privileges. It would be a good thing to do. But in the meantime the House must decide, on this Motion, whether it will allow the system of privileges to be used in a selective manner, and whether it wishes to invoke the Committee of Privileges to deal with matters such as that which arose in connection with my hon. Friend the Member for


Colne Valley—as hon. Members opposite were so quick to do.
I notice that no hon. Members opposite rose to protest on behalf of free speech on that occasion, but here, in a matter which is clearly of a more serious character, they say that they are in favour of free speech. If they are in favour of free speech, let them in future speak a little more openly.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Will the hon. Member tell the House which Members were specified by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy). He has an obligation to do that now, to complete his argument.

Mr. Foot: If I had been in the same position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, as I have indicated elsewhere, I might have put the whole thing in a proper perspective and in a much milder manner by saying that certain specified hon. Members opposite were half sober. If I had said that, apparently it would not have been a breach of privilege. If it is said the other way round it is, and the whole panoply of the Committee of Privileges is invoked in order to bash my hon. Friend on the head. He wrote a dignified letter to the Committee, which parried the blow considerably.

Sir Herbert Butcher: Does the hon. Member recollect that the decision to refer the matter of the breach of privilege on the part of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) was moved by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Foot: There is a general convention—it does not always apply—that when Mr. Speaker rules that there is a prima facie case the Leader of the House moves that it be sent to the Committee of Privileges. In my opinion, that case was a completely trivial one and could have been disposed of with much less paraphernalia. This is much more serious, and it would make nonsense of any system of privileges if, the case concerning my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley having been sent to the Committee of Privileges, this case were to be excluded.
I suggest that after the discussion that has taken place and after the complete failure of the Spectator or anyone else to justify the accusations made against my hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field, the only decent course, in order to provide justice for my hon. Friend, is for this Motion to be passed. If at a later stage, hon. Members opposite who hate privileges so much will come forward with a Motion to change its nature, they will get my enthusiastic support. But they will not get any enthusiastic support from me for an idea that there should be a selective system of privilege, which can be used to injure some hon. Members while allowing others to go scot free. Let us have the system applied faithfully and in the same manner for all hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they sit.
The passing of this Motion will not settle or resolve the matter. All it will do is to enable my hon. Friend to put his case in detail before a respected Committee of this House. That Committee will then be able to make up its mind and report back to the House, and the House can then judge on the facts which are not in its full possession at present. If hon. Members opposite vote against a Motion like this, in these circumstances, they are voting to inflict a grievous injustice on an hon. Member of the House. I hope that no hon. Member wishes to do that.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: This Motion is partly to do with the question of declaration of interest, and I have one to declare in that I am the controlling shareholder of the Spectator.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has made a long, rambling, inaccurate, ill-informed and irrelevant speech. I propose not to follow it, but to return to the Motion. The article in the Spectator was written—as my right hon. and learned Friend has said—by a lecturer in Vietnamese at the School of Oriental Studies in London. He is one of the few men in England or America who speaks Vietnamese, and he is probably the greatest expert on that subject in Britain or America.
The man referred to in the Daily Telegraph report, Mr. Brian Crozier, has been Reuter's correspondent in Saigon


and Foreign Editor of the Economist—so he, also, very much knows what he is talking about.
When he first raised this matter the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) complained that the articles contained innuendo, insinuation and the false association of ideas. But these articles were almost entirely factual. There were two half comments and one comment in them, otherwise they were entirely factual, and related to the public activities of the hon. Member.
None of these facts has been challenged. Exactly the same situation applies in connection with the article in the Daily Telegraph. It would be a remarkable thing if to tell the truth about the political activities of an hon. Member were to be a breach of privilege. The Spectator article also included a quotation from what the hon. Member had said in Hanoi. This quotation has been challenged in no way. It is entirely accurate, and was not taken out of context.

Mr. Warbey: I said earlier that I did not wish to intervene in this debate except to correct inaccurate statements. I have in my file—which I wish to present to the Committee of Privileges; this is one reason why I want the matter to go to that Committee—the text of an article which I dictated to my wife in Hanoi, which she typed in Hanoi, and which I sent to the editor of the offending newspaper for publication before I left Hanoi. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw that additional charge against me and that, moreover, he and the House will now recognise that this is a matter which can properly be investigated only by the Committee of Privileges, and not fully answered and dealt with in the course of a debate of two or three hours.

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Member quoted from the Spectator article at great length when he put down his Motion. It is a little unfortunate that he should not have quoted the one bit that he now says is inaccurate. Why did he leave that bit out?

Mr. Warbey: I am sorry, but the hon. Member has still not got it right. I did not say that that bit was inaccurate. The bit which is quoted from the Hanoi newspaper is not inaccurate except that

it is inaccurately translated, as I discovered when I was there. What is inaccurate is the suggestion that I did not protest against the publication of this article. On the contrary, I protested most vigorously and, as I have said, I wrote an article in reply and sent it to the newspaper while I was in Hanoi.

Mr. Gilmour: I did not say that it was inaccurate. The Spectator quote was from a radio broadcast in Hanoi and not an interview with a newspaper, so I do not know what the hon. Member is worrying about.
If the hon. Gentleman does not like having his political and public activities narrated and reported with complete accuracy, and his words quoted, he should alter the nature of his activities, and not try to prevent descriptions of them appearing in the public Press or elsewhere. If the mere recounting of facts about the hon. Gentleman's politics is damaging, he would surely do better to alter his politics than to try to stamp out discussion of them. He and his hon. Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and for Ebbw Vale have set themselves up as inverted Voltaires. Their attitude is, "I detest what you say, and I shall do everything in my power to stop you saying it".

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg the hon. Gentleman, whose speeches are usually listened to with respect and attention even on this side of the House, to try to realise what is the complaint that is being made. The complaint is not a recitation of the facts, but the imputation of a lack of integrity, an attack on his honour, and an innuendo that my hon. Friend was acting as the paid spokesman of a foreign inimical Power. That is the complaint.

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had he been a little less impatient he would have saved time, because that is the point I was coming to.
When the hon. Member first raised this matter in the House he made two broad complaints. He said that the articles were
reflections upon my loyalty to my parliamentary oath and the political party which promoted my election to Parliament"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 44.]


The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that there had been a character assassination by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). In fact, what the Spectator said was a mild stricture indeed compared with what was said in 1948. If what was said in the Spectator was a character assassination all I can say is that the hon. Member's character has been dead since 1948.
The Labour M.P.s who signed the Nenni telegram wanted to sabotage the foreign policy of the Government they were returned to support. They wanted to see Italy go the way of Roumania and Czechoslovakia. It has been obvious for some time that there were Members—not very many—whose whole attitude seemed to be far more consistent with membership of the Communist party than with loyal adherence to the Labour Patty. You will seek in vain for any condemnation of the destruct on of democracy in other countries. For them everything that the Communists do Is right …
That was said at Plymouth on 1st May, 1948, by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee. It is particularly relevant because, of course, the hon. Member for Ashfield, who was then the hon. Member for Luton, was a prominent signatory of the Nenni telegram. Other signatories of the original Motion who also signed the Nenni telegram were the hon. Members for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman), the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) and, of course, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. If the Spectator reflected upon the loyalty of the hon. Gentleman, how much greater reflection was cast by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Mr. Gilmour: Let me finish, I wanted to finish my sentence.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman is surely not saying that every time an hon. Member of this House differs from the leaders of his party he is thereby committing an act of disloyalty? If he is saying that, there is no hon. Member who has not at some time done it. The point is that no one then suggested, and no one has suggested since, that there was any element of corruption in what we did. That is what is being suggested now, and that is a wholly different matter.

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman really should liaise better with the hon. Member for Ashfield, who talked about

his loyalty having been impugned. I do not think that that interruption was relevant. The fact is that no one tried to bring Lord Attlee before the Committee of Privileges.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is not present in the Chamber, was even more outspoken. Speaking at Glasgow the day after Lord Attlee, he said:
These so-called rebels, these so-called revolutionaries, these wretched renegades, are destroying the working class.
No one on this side of the House would go so far as that.
The second point raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield, when he first made his complaint, was that the articles conveyed the impression that
because I have received hospitality from a foreign Government or political organisation in the course of travelling abroad to obtain information for use in parliamentary debates I am not a witness of truth, but a bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February. 1965; Vol. 707, c. 43–44.]
What he has not pointed out—and nor has any other hon. Member opposite—is that the foreign organisation in question has nothing to do with Spain, Hitler or Mussolini. It is at present waging war against a friendly State and is killing South Vietnamese and Americans, which makes it a little different. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to accept hospitality from such people must be a fit subject for comment.
If the hon. Gentleman resents publication of the fact that he has been a guest of the Fatherland Front, he should choose his hosts more carefully. If he is not ashamed of being the guest of these people he should not resent publication of the facts. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), in an excellent article in the Daily Express on 10th March, said that hon. Members going abroad should declare their interest. He may be right or he may not. The Spectator declare the hon. Member for Ashfield's interest for him.
Travelling abroad at the expense of foreign Governments has been the subject of a great deal of comment on both sides of the House. My right hon. and learned Friend made one or two quotations. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's complaint I relied on the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, a former Leader


of the Labour Party and a Prime Minister. On the second point we are discussing I rely on the present Leader of the Labour Party and the present Prime Minister. He has been quite explicit on this point. He said:
The activities of Voice and Vision on behalf of Sir Roy Welensky's administration —and particularly their sponsorship of conducted tours by selected M.P.s—have been strongly condemned inside and outside Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that these sort of people should
deploy their arguments in the full light of day, in the public Press, through full-time Embassy or company spokesmen or, in the case of Portugal, at the United Nations, not by under-cover and surreptitious pressure on M.P.s or Congressmen.
If the Prime Minister was so worried about the activities of Voice and Vision and by what he called the "under-cover and surreptitious pressure on M.P.s" he must have welcomed these articles very much, because they brought them into what he called the "full light of day".
Like Lord Attlee, the Prime Minister went a good deal further than either the Spectator or the Daily Telegraph has ever done. In this debate I am, for once, very happy to find myself ranged solidly behind Lord Attlee and the Prime Minister, which is a good deal more than can be said for the hon. Member for Ashfield, or the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, either in 1948, or today.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Has the Spectator ever criticised anybody who has gone to the United States to be brainwashed by the Americans?

Mr. Gilmour: I should not think so. I do not know anybody who has been to the United States and been brainwashed.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Who is your Leader?

Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker has already ruled that these articles do not prima facie raise a breach of privilege, and, in my submission, they are not within a moon flight of a breach of privilege.
There are two gloomy paradoxes about privilege which have been made clear this afternoon. One is that one of the great

privileges of Parliament is to preserve freedom of speech, yet these days privilege more often tends to have the effect of curbing freedom of speech. The second is that the function of privilege is to maintain public respect for Parliament, yet a constant preoccupation with privilege does more than anything else to lower the reputation of Parliament in the eyes of the public.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said the other day that the Committee of Privileges was a quasi-judicial body. With all respect to the very distinguished membership of that body, it is very quasi indeed, because of its procedure. It sits in private, it is the judge in its own cause and those who appear before it are not allowed legal representation. This means that its procedure is contrary to the rules of natural justice and contrary to the European Convention of Human Rights, which might be a trifle embarrassing if the Committee ever seriously tried to punish somebody who was not a Member of the House. But of course, because of its procedure, it never could try to punish anyone in this way, because there would be public uproar. It has a sanction which it cannot use.
When I was editor of the Spectator I was continually coming up against possible breaches of privilege, as all political journalists do, and I remember being advised by one of my hon. and learned Friends that if I were found guilty I should decline to apologise and come along here with my suitcase, ready and willing to go to the Clock Tower, or to Newgate. One of these days, somebody will do that, and then the House will be in a most awkward position. Its bluff will have been called. Surely, before that happens—I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on this—the House would be wise to have a look at the whole question of its privileges—

Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is suggesting that the Committee of Privileges has any power to send anyone to the Tower? This is quite wrong.

Mr. Gilmour: I did not say the Tower. I said the Clock Tower.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. All that the Committee of Privileges can do is recommend to the House its finding on any subject.

Mr. Gilmour: I take the point, but what I was saying was that my hon. and learned Friend suggested that I should come along here, and that it would be done on the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges.
I think that the House would be wise to have a look at this. There is no other free Parliament in Western Europe or the United States which feels it necessary to protect itself in this way. In these countries, either there is no specific offence of privilege or cases of privilege are tried by judges. The House handed over its jurisdiction over disputed elections in 1868, and I think that, sooner or later, it should do the same with privilege. It seems to me, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that it would be utterly wrong to extend the frontiers of privilege. Since this matter deals with Vietnam, one might say that the frontiers of privilege should not be infiltrated by parliamentary guerillas. Parliament exists to protect freedom of speech, not to intimidate it.
I shall not vote this evening, because I have an interest, but it seems to me that nobody can support this Motion without saying that Lord Attlee committed a breach of privilege in 1948 and that the present Prime Minister did the same in 1963.

5.44 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I propose to make only a brief intervention in the debate. There will, of course, be a free vote, and the Motion does not involve in any way the fate of the Government. Nevertheless, it was thought proper on this occasion for one of the Law Officers to be present to advise the House. Since the Motion is for a reference to the Committee of Privileges and my right hon. and learned Fiend the Attorney-General is a member of that Committee, it appeared more proper that I should intervene on this occasion.
As the House knows, a Law Officer is a hybrid animal. He is both a politician and a legal adviser. In the former

capacity, he takes his full share in the political controversy of the day, but in the latter, he must advise either the Government or, it may be—as on this occasion—the House, on the law, without regard to the political consequences. In the few minutes during which I propose to address the House, I shall attempt, in succession, to sustain both rôles.
Speaking first as a politician, I would say that I have not always agreed on issues of foreign policy with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey). Nevertheless, I have sympathy with him on this occasion. He has been subjected in the Press to a violent attack. It seemed to me, when I read it, that the innuendo in the Spectator article was tolerably clear. Any reader might have drawn the inference—and I think that readers were intended to draw the inference—that my hon. Friend had been influenced in his public conduct by the hospitality which he received in North Vietnam. That is an imputation which any hon. Member is entitled to resent, especially as, in the case of my hon. Friend, he was denied, by another organ of the Press, a suitable opportunity to reply.
Of course, it may be argued that it is unwise for hon. Members to accept the hospitality of foreign Governments or of foreign political organisations associated with Governments. That is a matter which every hon. Member has to decide for himself, but, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), it is a situation which has frequently arisen in the past.
Like my hon. Friend, I sat in the House during the 1930s and I remember at least two occasions then when this question of foreign hospitality arose. Every year for several years, in the summer, I received an invitation to spend part of the Summer Recess in Hungary. The invitation came from a leading Budapest newspaper closely associated with the Hungarian Government. I was asked to pay my own fare to and from the Hungarian frontier and thereafter, for about three weeks, to be the guest of the newspaper and to be taken all over Hungary. I was unable to accept that invitation, but there were other hon. Members who did. They came back having not only enjoyed themselves but having been made


fully aware of the views of the Hungarian Government on the question of the revision of the treaty of Trianon. Nobody suggested that they had compromised their political integrity.
I recall another occasion, which I think was the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne had in mind. It was in the days of Nazi Germany. An invitation was received by the Parliamentary Road Group which was a group of members belonging to the party opposite. The invitation was to inspect the autobahn, which were at that time the principal exhibit of the Hitler régime. Their host was Herr Fritz Todt, the German Inspector of Roads. The invitation was accepted and eight members of the party opposite went to Germany, obviously as the guests of a governmental organisation. This, I repeat, was in 1937. It is only fair to say—

Mr. R. H. Turton: To be accurate, that Parliamentary Road Group was formed by members on both sides of the House. If I remember correctly, on that occasion there were a number of members of the Labour Party.

The Solicitor-General: I was just coming to that. Perhaps the hon. Member will accept from me that I was going to say that, although the group was a group of the party opposite, they were joined on that occasion by members of the other two parties, but that group was taken to the major German cities, and, as a sort of climax to the tour, they went to the annual rally of the Nazi Party at Berchtesgaden, and listened to speeches by Hitler and Mussolini. Again, nobody suggested, whether it was wise or not, that their integrity was compromised.
Of course, there are other and more recent examples. We have been reminded that only a year or two ago, in the last days of the Central African Federation, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—I am not distinguishing for this purpose—were invited to visit Central Africa by an organisation which was sponsored by the Central African Government. In a number of cases these invitations were accepted, and some of the hon. Members who went afterwards took part in our debates on Central Africa.
I would agree that any Member who accepts the hospitality of a foreign government or a foreign political organisation may find himself in a position of some delicacy, because he may find it necessary thereafter to disappoint his hosts by taking a line in public controversy of which they would not approve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not, indeed? It is a matter, I suppose, for each individual Member to decide in the circumstances of a particular case when it is desirable and when it is proper to accept hospitality of this kind. But, as I have tried to make it clear, it has frequently been accepted in the past by Members of every political party without the suggestion ever being made, as it was clearly made in the Spectator article, that the Members concerned are thereby influenced in their political judgment. That is why I say that I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, and I understand entirely his feelings about the attack which has been made upon him.
I come to the question of privilege. This is where I have to appear in my other capacity, which is simply to advise the House regarding the law, because, of course, the law and custom of Parliament are only part of the law of the land. I listened with a good deal of interest to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) about Parliamentary privilege. I respectfully agree with what the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central said—that it would be a good thing if at some time in the not-so-distant future we were to look again at the boundaries of privilege. When speaking from the other side of the House I have myself expressed the view that privilege ought to be confined within the narrowest possible limits.
But the Motion here, with which I have to deal, is simply whether we should refer this complaint to the Committee of Privileges. Here I entirely agree with the test which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. We must satisfy ourselves before we pass this Motion that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt of the House. It is rather a fine distinction, and for this purpose a distinction which does not matter. In a sense, on such an


occasion we act as did the Grand Jury in years gone by. We do not ourselves reach a decision. We merely decided whether there is a case proper to go for frial.
May I remind the House for a moment what privilege is about? It is in order that the House may transact its business and in order that we may perform our functions as Members of Parliament. For those purposes we are given certain special immunities, protections and powers. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central said, they are wholly exceptional powers. We are immune from any kind of prosecution or civil process in respect of words which are spoken in the House. We must not be impeded in any way either in coming here or in the discharge of our duty when we are here. And both Houses have the power to punish by reprimand, by admonishment or by imprisonment those who offend against their privileges or who are in contempt of the House. But, as hon. Members from both sides of the House have observed, the jurisdiction which is given to us is one which we must exercise with the very greatest care. It is something, as we have been reminded, which is unique in our law, because each House, is, in effect, judged in its own cause. Against our decision, whatever it may be, there is no appeal. Moreover, it is well established, and the House has always accepted, that we cannot and must not attempt to add to our privileges. Therefore we must be exceedingly careful in any particular case that we do not, in effect, create a new offence.
That, as I must advise the House, is the danger here. I have very carefully studied the precedents and I have done so, as I have said, with every possible sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. But, even so, I am afraid that I must advise the House that in my view—of course, the House is not bound to accept my view—this does not and cannot amount either to a breach of privilege or to a contempt. Of course, there have been occasions in the past when an attack made upon hon. Members in the Press or in some public speech or by whatever medium has been treated as a contempt of the House and the offender has been dealt with accordingly. There has been a number of occasions when those who were not Members of the House—sometimes newspaper

editors, and others—have been summoned to the Bar and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, or earlier in Parliamentary history they were not infrequently committed to Newgate. On each occasion when this has happened—I am dealing with the scandalising of Members of Parliament—the imputation complained of has been in relation to something which has been done or omitted to be done in or in the precincts of the House itself, and it is that distinction which I feel bound to make on the present occasion.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) referred to the precedent of 1887. He did not remind the House what it was. I think that it might assist the House if I were to cite the matter of the complaint on that occasion. It was on 22nd February, 1887, and the complaint was raised by Sir Wilfrid Lawson. He complained of a leading article in The Times newspaper with reference to the Irish Members of this House. This was the passage of which he complained:
History will record with amazement that these men, whose political existence depends upon an organised system of midnight murder, and who draw at once their living and their notoriety from the steady perpetration of crimes for which civilisation decrees the gallows, are permitted to sit in the British House of Commons.
This was, not unnaturally, regarded as a grave reflection upon the group of Members concerned, and in making a statement to your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir Wilfred Lawson said:
Now, Sir, I think that is a reflection upon this House—namely, that we permit an organised band of murderers to sit with us in this House, and that organised band of murderers are the very men who, as essential to the Constitution, a large Party on the other side of the House have declared must remain at Westminster. I wish to ask whether I shall be in Order in moving a Resolution in reference to this extraordinary statement as a question of Privilege?
Mr. Speaker gave this ruling, which is germane to the matter which we have to consider today:
My attention has been called only a short time ago to the article to which the hon. Baronet refers; but, however grave the charges and imputations made in that article may be, I do not think it is a case of Privilege. It has been the practice in this House to restrain privilege under great limitations and conditions; and these restrictions and limitations have been, in my opinion, very wisely imposed by the


House upon itself. The Rule is that, when imputations are made, in order to raise a case of Privilege the imputation must refer to the action of hon. Members in the discharge of their duties in the actual transaction of the Business of this House; and though I quite understand the hon. Baronet having brought this matter to my notice, I cannot rule that this is a case of Privilege. Of course, if hon. Members think themselves aggrieved, they have a remedy; and they will not be precluded from pursuing their remedy elsewhere than in this House".
There, I suppose, it was difficult to imagine a graver imputation on a body of hon. Members, but since it referred to something which was done quite outside the House Mr. Speaker held that there was no breach of privilege and no contempt.
The same reasoning is to be found in the Report of the Committee of Privileges in the case concerning the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). It has already been quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and, therefore, I will only invite the attention of the House to one passage. In paragraph 5 of the Report, when various precedents which were collected by the Clerk of the House were referred to, it was stated:
In every case, however, the imputation was expressly directed to the conduct of a Member or Members either in the transaction of the service or business of the House or within its precincts.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my hon. and learned Friend not overlooking the fact that one important element in the article complained of is precisely the charge that in acting as an hon. Member of the House of Commons and signing a Motion on its Order Paper he was the paid spokesman of a foreign Government? I quite accept everything my hon. and learned Friend has been saying, and of course there can be no privilege unless the matter complained of affects the conduct of an hon. Member as an hon. Member, either in his activities as an hon. Member or in the precincts of the House. However, what I cannot follow is how he comes to hold that this matter now complained of is not a complaint of my hon. Friend's action as an hon. Member of the House of Commons, since it plainly is.

The Solicitor-General: I assure my hon. Friend that I had not overlooked that point. I was coming to it. But

before doing so I will make one other reference, since both my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale referred to the contrast between this case and the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), who was recently censured by the Committee of Privileges.
I take it that on that occasion the Committee of Privileges was applying precisely the test which I am now putting to the House. If it is said that there is a group of hon. Members who, in a debate, were half drunk or half sober, whichever way the matter is put, that is clearly an imputation on hon. Members regarding something which happens within the House. It is, therefore, a reflection
upon Parliament. But if the imputation refers to what I might call the extramural activities of hon. Members, then that falls within an entirely different category.
I assure hon. Members that, of course, I have considered this very anxiously indeed. As I say, I have to advise the House—without taking advice from anybody myself—and I did consider very carefully whether the one sentence to which he refers was sufficient to take the case, so to speak, across the line.
One must look at the matter of the complaint as a whole. What was said in the first place was that my hon. Friend and his wife had been guests at a certain hotel of the Vietnam Fatherland Front. Then there was a reference to articles which they had brought back—a propaganda film which had been brought back —to his letters in the Press and appearances in television programmes and sound broadcasts. There followed this sentence:
He is among the Labour M.P.s who tabled a motion in the House of Commons on February 10 to bring pressure on their leaders to change present British policy on Vietnam." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 43.]
I make two observations about that. In the first place, the complaint is not confined to that particular passage. The complaint of my hon. Friend was in reference to all these matters and he was suggesting that it was imputed to him that, in respect of all these matters, he was acting corruptly because of the hospitality which he had received in North Vietnam. In the second place, the


reference here is not only to himself but to "Labour M.P.s". There is no imputation against a group of hon. Members. It is merely stated that he was one of a group against whom, as I say, no imputation was made.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am trying to follow my hon. and learned Friend's argument and at the moment I am not following it. Suppose a charge is made against an hon. Member that his signing a Motion was brought about by his acceptance of a bribe? What would it matter that other hon. Members had signed the Motion without a bribe and what would it matter that the bribe was given to him outside the House instead of inside it?

The Solicitor-General: It would matter in this respect. Having consulted carefully the precedents I have found a number of precedents where it has been held that there was a breach of privilege or contempt where a group of hon. Members were impugned. I have not found a single precedent where only the conduct of one hon. Member was impugned. I do not know whether there is any imputation contained in this sentence. The complaint was not directed to the conduct of a group of hon. Members but at what was said of the general conduct, not only in this House but elsewhere, of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. It is into all those matters that the Committee of Privileges is being asked to inquire.

Mr. Warbey: On this point of whether the complaint concerned only myself or other hon. Members, my hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind that I did also raise and quote in the House a passage from the Daily Telegraph which quite clearly extended the charges to others of my hon. Friends. This appears in column 43 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 22nd February.

The Solicitor-General: The passage which is complained of in the Daily Telegraph is this:
Privilege ' Issue in B.B.C. Dispute
Mr. William Warbey, Labour M.P. for Ashfield, Nottingham, refused to comment last night on a controversy over a radio programme on Vietnam as it was 'connected with a subject which might be raised today as a matter of Parliamentary privilege.'

'Mr. Crozier said yesterday: I was not surprised when I heard that Mr. Warbey would not appear with me in view of what happened in a Dateline programme the previous night. when I asked him who had paid his hotel bill at Hanoi. He said it was the Vietnam Fatherland Front. This is a Communist organisation. Several M.P.s have been their guest in the past. I accept the view that the programme the B.B.C. put on was not unfair, but the fact is that two experts on Vietnam were kept out because of Mr. Warbey's objections.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 43.]
I cannot, I am afraid, on that passage classify the other hon. Members there referred to with my hon. Friend, because there is no suggestion that the public conduct of other hon. Members has in any way been influenced by the fact that they have been to North Vietnam, so I am afraid that I cannot bring them into the same group.
All hon. Members who take part in political activities outside the House expose themselves to attack. We address public meetings, lead processions, sometimes join in protest demonstrations, write in the Press and we televise and broadcast. When we engage in these extramural activities we are, I suggest, in precisely the same position no better, no worse—than any other member of the public and it would be entirely wrong—

Mr. William Yates: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman goes any further, could he answer this question? When I am speaking in my constituency is that extramural studying? I should be glad to know because the hon. and learned Gentleman made an interesting observation.

The Solicitor-General: The answer is "Yes". The answer is that we are protected here in respect of the words spoken in the House, because we could not otherwise carry on Parliamentary debate. But if the hon. Gentleman were to claim some special privilege or protection in respect of words spoken in his constituency the claim would not get him very far.
As I say, it is wrong that we should claim the protection of privilege in respect of anything done outside this House. Therefore, after a great deal of consideration, and not in any way having overlooked the point that has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, I must advise the


House that there is not here a prima facie case to go to the Committee of Privileges. That being so, I cannot advise the House to accept the Motion.
Perhaps I may be allowed to add this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said that he did not feel that reference to a Committee of Privileges was necessarily the best way of testing a complaint of this kind. I respectfully agree with him. The position of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield is that he has had very serious charges laid against him in the Press, he has not had an opportunity of replying, and he, very naturally and properly, wants this matter to be fully investigated.
My answer to that is that that is not the business of the Committee of Privileges. The task for the Committee of Privileges is not to investigate the truth or falsehood of allegations which may be made against a particular hon. Member or group of hon. Members but simply to advise this House as to whether, in the Committee's view, there has been a breach of privilege or a contempt. Therefore, even if this matter were to go to the Committee of Privileges there could not be the kind of investigation that my hon. Friend desires. For the reasons I have given, I do not think that there is here a prima facie case and, therefore —although I say it to my hon. Friend with very deep reluctance—I have to advise that this Motion should not be supported.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Before I address myself to the terms of the Motion, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General would not think it improper of me if I tendered to him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, our deep sympathy in the family bereavement which we were very sorry to see reported in the Press, and for which we offer him our heart-felt condolence.
I hope that the House is now in a position to accept the advice given by the Solicitor-General in what, I submit, was a really conclusive argument. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) conceded that we could not refer this complaint to the Committee of Privileges unless we thought that there was a prima facie case

to refer. Surely, that must be right. The position is that Mr. Speaker ruled that in this case there was no prima facie case to refer.
Of course, as we have been reminded, we are not bound, on a substantive Motion, by the opinion of Mr. Speaker, but, of course, even on a substantive Motion, we treat the opinion of Mr. Speaker with a good deal of respect. One would need, I think, to be convinced that there was something rather obviously wrong with it before one took the serious step of referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges, over-ruling his Ruling, which is what I think we are being asked to do—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the word "over-ruling". If this Motion of mine were carried we would not be over-ruling the Speaker at all. All that the Speaker decided was that the complaint was not one to which he could give precedence over the order of business for that day. That is all he decided, and no one is seeking to overrule that.

Mr. Hogg: On the contrary, the basis of Mr. Speaker's Ruling in all these cases is whether or not there is a prima facie case. If there is a prima facie case, he is bound to give it precedence over the business of the day and, if there is not, he declines to do so. I say that with great respect to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who moved the Motion in terms of great moderation. But I was replying to an argument put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), in which he said that he was differing in this case from Mr. Speaker —as he is fully entitled to do on a substantive Motion.
Then the Solicitor-General, who is one of the two Law Officers who are the legal advisers to the House, advises the House himself on the Motion, and he comes to the same conclusion that there is not a prima facie case. Again, of course, we are not bound by the opinion of the learned Solicitor-General, but, again, we are surely right in saying that on matters of this kind we treat the opinions of the law officers—given as they are, as we know, impartially, and not as partisans but as legal advisers to the House—with very great respect indeed. Although we can dissent from them


if we wish, surely the House would be making a great mistake if, without very strong reasons to the contrary, it overruled, if that is a word that does not cause offence, the opinion of the Solicitor-General to the effect that there was no prima facie case.
But it does not really stop there. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne frankly based his case, when he argued its merits, on the doctrine that this particular article was not fair comment. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey)—to whom I say, in passing, that I desire to say nothing that could possibly give him offence and whose sincerity I do not wish to impugn in any way at all—whose conduct in the matter has been one of commendable and complete candour, said that he had been advised—we know not by whom, but no doubt by competent legal advisers—that he would fail in any action in the courts on the precise ground that he would be unable to establish malice. That means, as every lawyer in the House will know, one thing and one thing only; that he was advised in terms that the defence of fair comment would there succeed.
We are not bound by the legal advisers of the hon. Member for Ashfield, but we have Mr. Speaker's Ruling on the original complaint, we have heard the advice of the Solicitor-General in this debate, we have heard from the hon. Member for Ashfield himself the reason why he did not issue a writ for libel, and for some reason I should have thought that the House would be really well-advised to accept this complete unanimity of opinion—

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not mislead the House, though he has himself been well-advised. He knows very well that an action in the courts would be an action in order to obtain personal damages. That is totally different from the procedure in this House in order to maintain the reputation of the House itself and of its Members in the eyes of the public, and to enable its Members to exercise their rights of free speech within this House without intimidation from outside.

Mr. Hogg: I intended to base a very great part of my argument on that precise difference. All I was seeking to do

at the moment was to point out that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, in moving the Motion, expressly based his case on the charge that this was not fair comment, and, by his candid intervention, the hon. Member for Ashfield has, with commendable candour, disclosed what could only be a clear indication that that view did not coincide with that of his own legal advisers—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I dare say the fault was entirely mine, and I want to explain it. When I used the expression "fair comment", I was not using it as a term of art as applied in libel actions in the courts. What I meant was that it was not the kind of comment that the House of Commons ought to accept with regard to the actions of a Member of Parliament. I am sorry that I used the expression "fair comment", because I agree that it is misleading and ambiguous. I therefore hope that the House will indulge me in giving this explanation.

Mr. Hogg: Naturally, I would accept the explanation of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in its entirety. But this puts him in an even worse position dialectically, because the fact of the matter is—the learned Solicitor-General has referred in part to the precedent—that the House of Commons in dealing with matters of privilege and contempt does not, in fact, punish with censure or with other punishment for privilege and contempt all the things which would be defamatory in the courts. Therefore, the situation is a fortiori to that with which I was dealing, on a misunderstanding of what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it was a genuine misunderstanding.
In the Report from the Committee of Privileges to which attention has already been drawn this passage appears, which I commend to the notice of the hon. Gentleman, because this disposes of the complaint in this case:
The Clerk of the House referred Your
Committee to a line of cases in which the House has considered treating imputations upon Members or some one or more of them as a contempt of the House itself. In every case, however, the imputation was expressly directed to the conduct of a Member or Members either in the transaction of the service or business of the House or within its precincts.


So we have, not only Mr. Speaker's Ruling, by which we are not bound; not only the opinion of the learned Solicitor-General, by which we are not bound, in the same sense; not only the advice of the legal advisers of the hon. Member for Ashfield, by which, again, we are not bound; but also the recent precedent of the Report from the Committee of Privileges, which was a unanimous Report and which Committee consisted of some of the most respected and distinguished Members of the House. It is worth while remembering that the decision of the Committee of Privileges was expressly accepted by the House.
Lest there should be any doubt about this, I point out that the Committee said this a little later in its Report:
It seems to them"—
that is, to the Committee—
particularly important that the law of parliamentary privilege should not, except in the clearest case, be evoked so as to inhibit or discourage the formation and free expression of opinion outside the House by Members equally with other citizens in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation.
Coupled with the first quotation which I have made, the clear conclusion of the Committee of Privileges, whether upon precedent or upon common sense—in this I submit that commonsense is at least as good a guide as precedent—was that this kind of thing is not a breach of privilege or contempt; that the procedure by way of privilege or contempt is not a substitute for an action for libel or slander in the courts, to which every citizen, including the hon. Member for Ashfield, is entitled to resort if he thinks that a charge of a serious kind has been made against him; and that it should not be used in this way.
The Report from the Committee of Privileges, accepted by the House, contained these words also:
Your Committee and the House … are concerned only with the protection of the reputation, the character and the good name of the House itself. It is in that respect only and for that limited purpose that they are concerned with imputations against the conduct of individual Members.
Let me say again that I do not make the smallest imputation whatever against the sincerity in all his actions of the hon. Member for Ashfield. I think that he has been very misguided in a number of-

things he has done, but that is not surprising, since we stand about on the opposite poles of political opinion. I have never made any attack upon his integrity, and I do not make it now. However, to treat this article as an attack, not upon the hon. Gentleman, but upon the dignity and honour of the House, would be a frontal attack upon the whole tradition of free speech and free expression of opinion, upon which the whole basis of the honour and dignity of the House has been founded.
I sincerely hope that no serious attention will be paid by the House to the argument of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, which seemed to me to go a great deal further than that of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne conceded quite frankly, and I think wholly properly, that we should not pass the Motion, unless we think that there is a prima facie case. In one passage of his speech the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seemed to take another and, to my mind, a much more mischievous and irresponsible view. His view appeared to be, "Nothing much is decided if we refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, because no decision has been taken. The Committee will have to advise the House, and the House will ultimately have to come to a conclusion. Therefore, we can safely go ahead with this Motion".

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What is the difference?

Mr. Hogg: I think that there is this clear and absolute difference. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne frankly and properly conceded that we should not do this thing, unless there is a prima facie case, as the learned Solicitor-General agreed. In one passage at least of his speech the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seemed, at least to me and to some of us on this side of the House, to be inciting us to do it because it was not a final conclusion. They are very different things.
If we started referring things in respect of which there was not a prima facie case, great damage would be done to the dignity of the House, which is not enhanced by using the procedure of contempt or breach of privilege to protect individual Members from Press criticism.


It would do a very great inconvenience to the very distinguished members of the Committee of Privilege, who include the Leader of the House and many leading Members on both sides. It would do an injustice to those who are charged.
May I say this, in passing? It must be remembered that this is a penal prosecution which is proposed. It is a prosecution which can result in pains and penalties. In extreme cases it can result in people being sent to prison. We should not altogether forget the position of those who are charged with a breach of privilege—the editor, I suppose, of the Daily Telegraph; the editor, I suppose, of the Spectator; perhaps the printers, for aught I know; the author of the article, and numbers of other people. Injustice is done to those who are put to the expense, worry and trouble of defending themselves on a criminal charge when there is no real substance in the allegation; when Mr. Speaker has ruled that there is no prima facie case; when the Solicitor-General has advised that there is no prima facie case; when the Ruling of Mr. Speaker in 1887, repeatedly accepted by the House, concludes the matter against the hon. Gentleman; and when the unanimous Report from the Committee of Privileges only a year ago, accepted without a Division in the House, equally concludes the matter against the hon. Gentleman.
I accept that this article was intended to criticise the actions of the hon. Member for Ashfield. Of course it was. Today, we are not determining one way or another the validity of those criticisms. We are determining whether a writer in the newspapers is entitled to make them at all. I do not myself think that anybody reading the articles would put the precise meaning upon them attributed to them by the hon. Member for Ashfield, that he was speaking as
a bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 44.]
I do not think that the author of the article meant it. I do not think that any reasonable person would so understand it. I do not mean it. I do not think it, and I do not think that anybody else thinks it of him either. The point is, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said in the earlier speech

he made and which seemed to me to be very much to the point, there is no doubt either that this is a question, as I think the Solicitor-General reminded us, which in one form or another has very often been the subject of Press comment and criticisms.
It does not affect only one side of the House. I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to visits to the Middle East or the dictatorship countries. We know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House habitually visit behind the Iron Curtain and it may be, for aught I know, very difficult indeed not to accept Government hospitality when in these strange parts one happens to want to travel.
One recent case was when Sir Roy Welensky's Government provided through a public relations firm for a visit to parts of Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), on that occasion, was only one of a number of people who criticised those who participated in that Government's hospitality, and that Government and the public relations firm for offering it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral quoted one remark made publicly by the hon. Member for Pembroke. I would quote another even more definitive. The hon. Member said:
The plain fact is that it is extremely difficult for Members of Parliament to accept invitations from foreign Governments or from public relations organisations working for them without being compromised.
That is the plain fact. The test of these matters in each case must be, as the Solicitor-General has told us, our individual consciences. We can accept hospitality without compromising our integrity.
I do not for a moment suggest that the hon. Member for Ashfield compromised his integrity by accepting the hospitality of Hanoi. I have known the hon. Member for 20 years as a Member of the House and outside the House. He has made his general sympathies in politics so well-known that no one would for a moment suggest that he was moved further to the Left as a result of having booked a room in one of the North Vietnamese hotels. But it is open to those who do not agree with his conduct to make the kind of observation which was made in the Press


about him. The hon. Member does lay himself open to criticism, right or wrong, by accepting hospitality from those who attack this country verbally, support our enemies, make war on our allies, and subvert freedom in neighbouring territories. He no doubt acted with sincerity. He is on the other side to me in this matter.

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he began with great sincerity and with the obvious intention of being fair—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—is now including in his speech matter which really confirms one of the reasons why I brought this matter before
the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—namely, that the publication of this material in the Spectator, the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers in the country would have the effect of creating certain prejudices in the minds of my colleagues so that when I came to speak about these matters in the House they would not then take a fair and unprejudiced view of what I was saying to the House.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that there is anything at all in what I said to give rise to that comment. I said at the beginning, and I say now, that I do not willingly mean to say anything which could possibly give cause for offence of any kind to the hon. Member. But whatever else I was saying I was certainly not saying, and I here quote from the hon. Member, the thing that he was complaining of on 22nd February, because what he was then complaining of was that the article meant that he was a "bribed spokesman of a foreign organisation".
The whole basis of my argument was that nobody thinks that, nobody has said it, and certainly I do not mean it. But what I was saying at the same time was that if the hon. Member goes to Vietnam, which nobody in the House asks him to do, and he comes back with a propaganda film for the Communists in his luggage and disseminates it here, and if he goes on the wireless, whether the B.B.C. or the commercial network, and propagates the views of the North Vietnam Government, he must expect to come in for criticism.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, "If he goes on television and propagates the views of North Vietnam Government". This is precisely the thing about which my hon. Friends and I are complaining, namely, the insinuation that in speaking, whether in this House or outside, I am propagating the views of the Government from whom I received hospitality.
This is precisely our complaint and precisely the reason why we regard it as essential that this whole matter should be investigated by the Committee of Privileges, with all the evidence on one side and the other which can only be properly considered by that Committee and the Committee, having examined the evidence and heard the various persons in their own defence, should make their report to the House.

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) said, "On a point of order." I do not think that this gives rise to a point of order, but it tends to define the issue.

Mr. Warbey: I will correct that, Mr. Speaker, to "on a point of intervention".

Mr. Hogg: I can only say again that I was in no way intending to give personal offence to the hon. Member. But if he prefers me to say that he promulgates views which happen to coincide exactly with those of the Vietnam Government I will willingly substitute that phrase if it will cause him consolation. I only say that if he does it he lays himself open to criticism and his intervention demonstrates his extreme touchiness in this matter.

Mr. William Yates: When we go to the Yemen or other countries and we come back and give our opinions here we must not be so touchy about the matter. We must stand up and argue the thing out. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) getting so worried about the matter.

Mr. Hogg: So am I, but I do not want to detain the House any longer and will conclude by saying that the whole of the arguments based on precedents and law have again and again been demonstrated to throw this Motion out of court, and all the arguments of common sense go


in the same direction. I venture to say that if we were to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges we would be doing a real disservice to the dignity and honour of the House and we would be making a frontal attack on the tradition of free speech, for which I am sure both hon. Members opposite and we on this side of the House are unitedly determined to stand.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: If I intervene at this stage, it is simply that I have sat throughout the debate and I have put my name to the Motion. We have heard the opinions of two learned Members, my hon. and learned Friend the Solcitor-General and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to the effect that, on the face of it, there is no breach of privilege here, but, as they both concede, it is, in the end, a matter for the House to decide. I regret that the debate has, from time to time, taken party lines. I regard it as entirely a House of Commons matter. I have put my name to the Motion not because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) as he well knows, in the special views which he holds about the situation in South-East Asia. I have differed very much from my hon. Friend on foreign affairs from time to time, but I have put my name to the Motion because I sincerely believe that he has been badly treated.
As I see it, the issue is the right of a Member of the House to express minority views and, I take it, somewhat unpopular views without his loyalty to his country, to our democratic system and to his party being called into question. There have been references to the policies being pursued by the Government of North Vietnam. It is as well to remember that this Government, much as I, like others, dislike its policies, is not a Government with which we are at war, or, for that matter, one with which the United States, our ally, is officially at war. North Vietnam is a country with which we maintain correct and so-called normal relations, as I understand it. Therefore, it seems to me that it is very hard on my hon. Friend, and it does much harm to his reputation as a Member of the House, that he is accused in this way of disloyalty simply because he visited that country.
I agree with those who say that there could be two opinions about whether the article questions my hon. Friend's loyalty, but, when I read it, I certainly thought that it did, and I thought that it was the intention of the writer of the article to question my hon. Friend's loyalty to his country and to his Party. I believe that most people would take the same view.

Mr. Archie Manuel: My hon. Friend means the Spectator article?

Mr. Palmer: Yes, the Spectator article.

Mr. Manuel: It was a "lousy" article.

Mr. Palmer: Maybe, but I think that it was likely to lower my hon. Friend's esteem in the eyes of the public and his esteem in the eyes of his colleagues in the House. Therefore, I feel that it is a proper matter for the Committee of Privileges at least to inquire into. But if opinions may vary on the issue of the disloyalty charge, on the other offensive implication of the article there is far less room for argument. The other suggestion is that, because my hon. Friend accepted hospitality in North Vietnam, he was influenced in putting forward arguments in favour of the Government of that country against the policy of the Labour Party and aganist the policy of the present British Government. Having carefully read the Spectator article, I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylelone that nine out of 10 fair and open-minded people reading it would not take that view. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman be right, why does the article go out of its way to drag in the name of the hotel at which my hon. Friend stayed, to mention that his wife was there and received additional hospitality, and so on?
The Spectator was, of course, perfectly entitled to attack my hon. Friend's views on Vietnam or questions of foreign policy in South-East Asia. I should not use quite the same arguments, but I might well criticise him myself. But it is, surely, possible to do so without dragging in the name of the hotel at which he stayed or mentioning the amount of hospitality which he received. These matters were dragged in because the writer of the article intended to do so with a purpose. The


hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), the proprietor of the paper, made no attempt to apologise in his speech today. I do not complain about that. He was, in fact, almost brazen in his justification of the article. It seems to me that the intention was to suggest not only that my hon. Friend was wrong in his opinions, but that his opinions were influenced by the amount of free board and lodging and, perhaps, other favours he had received—to put it bluntly—that my hon. Friend is corrupt.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for many years. I do not think that he will mind my saying that he takes plainness and simplicity of life almost to a fault. I should have thought that there was no one less likely—the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone also made this observation—to be influenced by food and drink offered or by the warmth of the reception accorded to him. My hon. Friend is an obstinate man. Like Robespierre, he means every word he says, and there is nothing in material wealth, at any rate, that is likely to shake him in his views, either to confirm his convictions or take anything from them. He is always charming, but he will be as obstinate at the end of the party as he is at the beginning. These material things make no difference to him or his views.
I mention that fact in passing, but, of course, it is irrelevant since precedent has laid down that privilege is absolute, that the fact of bringing into contempt is enough. But what greater bringing into contempt could there be against an hon. Member of the House than an allegation of corruption? This, as I see it, is the allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, that he is the tool of others, that he is a hired hack, that he pursues policies not based on his own beliefs and principles but on the interests of others, in a word. of outside masters.
That is the interpretation I place upon the article. My hon. Friend deeply resents it, and I do not blame him. In justice, therefore, I submit that he is entitled to the opportunity which the House offers at this stage, that his case should be considered by the Committee of Privileges. It has been said that he has the recourse open to every citizen of

this country, if he likes to take it, the right of recourse to the courts. But if the courts of the land were sufficient to protect hon. Members, there would be little point in having our vast and complicated edifice of parliamentary privilege.
I regard this issue as particularly important in today's conditions because hon. Members are more or less bound to travel abroad in the course of their duties if they are to be well informed on world affairs and to bring back opinions and information to the House. In the conditions of the world today, they cannot hope to do this always at their own expense, and, in any case, there are countries where, even if one offers to pay, one is not allowed to do so, such is the tight control which some modern Governments impose on the movement of their citizens and visitors. Therefore, this issue goes wider than just my hon. Friend's case. It affects the position of hon. Members generally when they travel. For this further reason, in spite of the arguments we have heard from both the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I should like the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges, for the rights of one are the rights of all in this House.
I began by saying that I regretted that to some extent this afternoon the matter of my hon. Friend's complaint had become one of party feeling. I have not approached it in this way. I assure the House that precisely the arguments which I have used in defence of my hon. Friend and to advocate that his complaint should go to the Committee of Privileges I should use if a Conservative Member or a Liberal Member of the House were involved.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: Listening to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), it is clear—I say it in all courtesy—that he has not taken in the arguments of the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General has completely torpedoed the Motion.
I had already armed myself with the 1887 quotation which the Solicitor-General produced. It ends the argument. In face of the quotations from your predecessor in 1887, Mr. Speaker,


nobody can possibly assert that it is a breach of privilege to make imputations against the morals or the good name of individual Members of the House.

Mr. Warbey: rose—

Mr. Curran: I will give way in a moment.
It was ruled then, and it has been ruled since, and I think it must now be taken for granted, that there is a very wide gap between the good name of the House and the personal reputation of an individual Member or of a group of Members.

Mr. Warbey: The hon. Member has missed the contrary arguments which were put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. He made it clear, first of all, that what we are concerned about is the freedom of speech of all Members of this House collectively and severally—their freedom to take part in debates, proceedings in Parliament, without any intimidation. Moreover, the article in the Spectator referred, first, to the question of the Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, and then, secondly, to the question of whether I am fit to be a member of the Labour Party, and, therefore, by implication, whether, when I speak in the House of Commons, I am legitimately speaking as a member of the Labour Party or not, and in all three cases these are references to proceedings in Parliament.

Mr. Curran: That is rather an abuse of the courtesy that I give the hon. Gentleman in giving way to him. I was prepared to give way for an intervention but not for an extract from the "Encyclopaedia Britannica". I repeat that to most of us the argument which was put forward by the Solicitor-General, and which was developed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), is an argument to which there can be no answer.
Therefore, we are left with a second question, and it is this second question which, I think, lies at the back of the interruption to which I have just been subjected. It is clear that the opinions expressed by the Spectator, whatever their merits, are not opinions which can be taken before the Committee of Privileges. This House is not, in fact, required to discuss whether the opinions which the

Spectator expressed are in any sense of the word right, true, valid, tenable or tolerable. We have nothing whatever to do with any such question. We are concerned simply with the question whether a citizen—any citizen—is free, if he likes, to express that sort of opinion about a Member of Parliament.
I submit that in a free society there can be only one answer. Suppose the Spectator, or any citizen, holds the view that no Member of the House ought to accept hospitality from a Communist front. That is an opinion. Any citizen is free to hold that opinion if he likes, and any citizen is free to print it, and no citizen should be made answerable for having that opinion. The hon. Gentleman may not like it. There are many opinions expressed about us that we do not like, but we have to put up with them.

Mr. Warbey: They are not entitled to draw dirty conclusions.

Mr. Curran: I would tell the hon. Gentleman that we must not be too thin skinned about this. All of us are very apt to say that we do not mind criticism so long as it is fair, balanced, and reasonable. The fact is that, from the point of view of the target, criticism never is fair, balanced and reasonable. Any politician who says that he does not mind criticism so long as it is fair is rather like the lady proclaiming, "You can say what you like about me so long as you say I am lovely".
The fact is that, whether we like it or not, we must all put up with criticism of a sort that we think is harsh and unjust. We had better remember—I commend it to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey)—the alleged remark by Harry Truman, when somebody complained to him that he had been criticised in a fashion which was harsh, unfair and unreasonable. Truman replied, "This is what comes of going into politics. If you do not like the heat, you had better keep out of the kitchen".

Mr. Palmer: Is not the hon. Gentleman missing the point? My hon. Friend has complained not about criticism, but about the suggestion that in following his duties as a Member of Parliament he is corrupt.

Mr. Curran: I will take it a stage further. Suppose the Spectator formed


this view, or sought to suggest it. I do not believe that it did, but let it be granted for the sake of argument that it did. Let it be granted that the Spectator, though I do not believe it did, sought to say that in going to Vietnam as he did the hon. Member for Ash-field was being corruptly influenced by the Communist front. Let us suppose that that is the opinion. Is it asserted that nobody may express that sort of opinion about a Member of Parliament unless he runs the risk of being made answerable to this House?
If the hon. Gentleman believes that the assertion in the Spectator article amounted to an assertion that he had become a corrupt instrument of the Communist front in Vietnam, then his remedy was not to come here but to go to the courts. But the hon. Gentleman said that when he took legal advice on the

point he was told apparently that he had not a case. Why should be expect us to do for him here what the courts are not prepared to do for him?

There is all the difference in the world, I repeat, between accusations against individual Members, which may be right or wrong, and accusations which involve the dignity and the good name of Parliament. We cannot in this country seek to stop, and I hope we never shall seek to stop—

Sir Douglas Glover: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 159.

Division No.76.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hoy, James
Owen, Will


Atkinson, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Bessell, Peter
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John


Bishop, E. S.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jackson, Colin
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;st.P'cras,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Huli, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowland, Christopher


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp;Chatham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dodds, Norman
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Skeffington, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Evans, loan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fernyhough, E.
McGuire, Michael
Thornton, Ernest


Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Mclnnes, James
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Raymond (IIkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
MacMillan, Malcolm
Wallace, George


Gregory, Arnold
Manuel, Archie
Warbey, William


Grey, Charles
Marsh, Richard
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
Zilliacus, K.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Hayman, F. H.
Newens, Stan



Hazell, Bert
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby,S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Sydney Silverman and


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Michael Foot.


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley





NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Box, Donald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berkeley, Humphry
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Birch, Rt, Hn. Nlgel
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Batsford, Brian
Blaker, Peter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Hn. Clive
Bruce-Gardyne, J.




Buchanan-Smith, AlicK
Hilt, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buxton, R. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, H. E.
Rees-Davies,W.R.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hopkins, Alan
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Royle, Anthony


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Corfield, F.V.
Johnson Smith, G.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sharples, Richard


Crawley, Aidan
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Crawshaw, Richard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chlswick)


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
stainton, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Dean, Paul
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
stodart, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Longbottom, Charles
Studholme, Sir Henry


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


English, Michael
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Thomas, Rt, Hn. Peter (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)


Fletcher-cooke Charles (Drawen)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tiley, Arthur (Bradrord, W.)


 Fletcher-cooke, Sir John (S"pton)
McNalr- Wilson, Patrick
Turton, Rt. Hn. R.H.


Fraser Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maude, Angus
Van Straubenzee


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walder, David (High Peak)


Gardner, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.)
wall, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper



Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant, Anthony
Neal, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Gresham-cooke, R.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Webster, David


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wills, Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)



Hay, John
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Sir Herbert Butcher and


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pounder, Rafton
Sir Leslie Thomas.


Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed, I should explain that I am selecting the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) and of the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett) if they wish to move it.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Jack Dunnett: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
We all agree with the basic principles of the Bill and recognise that the present Covent Garden Market site is highly unsatisfactory. The market has been there for many years and there is no doubt that,

when it was first placed there, it was in a highly convenient, central place and did not cause the congestion and chaos that it does today. Those were the days when London was far smaller and congestion far less.
Today, however, there is no justification for siting the market at Covent Garden. The object of the Bill is to transfer the market to Nine Elms on the other side of the river. The Runciman Committee, set up in 1955, reported in 1957 that, while there was a case for moving the bulk of the market away, some of it should remain on the present site but only as a centre for price fixing. The Committee recommended that the bulk of the wholesale trade should be moved away.
The Covent Garden Market Act, 1961, vested the present market and its administration in the Covent Garden Market Authority, but required the extent of the


land used by the market to be reduced to a maximum of 10 acres. The Authority has now concluded that the site in these terms would be inadequate and that the market should be removed. It accordingly proposed to move it to Nine Elms.
But Nine Elms is highly unsatisfactory for the site of the market. The Authority's recommendation does not have regard to traffic and planning problems in relation to the retail and wholesale markets throughout the London area that the Covent Garden Market is intended to serve.
The main reason for altering the present site is the great congestion, but there is also the considerable traffic congestion which it engenders. Should we be very much better off if the site were moved to Nine Elms? In the vicinity of the proposed site there is the London County Council Vauxhall Cross highway improvement scheme, which has yet to be implemented and which was approved by Parliament only a year or two ago. By the time the Covent Garden scheme had been implemented, that road improvement scheme would be out of date and would have to be recast, recast not only with consequent delay, but with much greater expenditure which, unless subsidised by some Government agency, would involve a lesser expenditure on highways throughout the remainder of the Greater London Council area.
Furthermore, the need to get products moved from the new site to the North London retail outlets would inevitably cause increased congestion across the Thames bridges, and this at a time when it is undesirable further to congest these rather narrow outlets. I also understand that the Ministry of Aviation is proposing a helicopter port just to the north of the proposed new market site. That would be another generator of traffic on a considerable scale and the combination of the two would create a traffic problem out of all proportion to the easement of the situation occasioned by moving the market from Covent Garden to Nine Elms.
Traffic congestion is not the only reason for opposing the proposed transfer to Nine Elms. Other difficulties and problems arise. As London has spread out, the centre has become increasingly congested and if the new site is tem-

porarily of some better value than the present site, it is clear that in the foreseeable future yet another move would have to be considered.
Apart from the general principle that markets for London should be situated nearer the periphery, where there is more space, more land and less congestion, there are particular objections to the Bill. It is recognised increasingly that planning controls are necessary, particularly in congested areas, but Clause 18 makes any development, with very minor exceptions, a permitted development within the meaning of the planning regulations. That would mean that planning authorities could not exercise any control over the way in which the site area was developed. I hope that the House will agree that it would be highly undesirable, in an era when, in the interests of all, we are seeking to have a reasonable degree of planning authority, to give an Authority, albeit a statutory one, complete discretion to develop as it pleases with only very minor limitations.
I also draw to the attention of the House the absence of any provisions to impose on the Authority a duty to take particular care against the danger from fire on the proposed site. It increasingly takes longer for fire appliances to get to the scene of fires, and in an area which will inevitably be congested there are to be no regulations imposing on the Authority the duty to minimise such congestion.
Furthermore, the land is being acquired on a somewhat unusually generous scale. The Bill asks for the acquisition of an area of about 83 acres. This includes, among other pieces of land, three schools and colleges, several blocks of flats, some built since the war, a large clearance area, at present vested in the London County Council, and a temporary housing site. If the Bill were passed with little or no amendment, it would be possible to give up the temporary housing area and the clearance area without undue inconvenience, but it would be wrong for the schools and homes to be acquired and no longer used for their present purposes, thus adding to the present educational and housing difficulties of the authorities concerned.
I therefore ask for the Bill to be withdrawn for reconsideration. I can only repeat that its principle is entirely satisfactory, but that it seems not to have been worked in sufficient detail and with sufficient care. I cannot believe that the Nine Elms site is the only feasible site in the Greater London area for this project. If the Bill is withdrawn with a view to seeking other sites and they cannot be found, if the Nine Elms site has to be selected, let us at least have a proper degree of planning control and fire control and the greatest care to see that no more land than is needed is required, land which in this city is at a premium, not in a monetary but in a social sense.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I must confess to being very disappointed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett). Not only was what he said extremely reactionary, but it was also extremely backward looking. The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), for whom I have the greatest respect both here and in her other capacity on London County Council, must be well aware that the present Covent Garden Market is completely out of date for the needs which is now has to meet.
One of my earliest recollections is as a small boy being taken round the markets of London, I think in 1936, and going to Covent Garden and seeing my father get into the most appalling argument with one of the porters because his car was jamming the traffic. That is a long time ago and the traffic conditions in the market have got much worse since then. Indeed, the market has an average movement of traffic of about 4,000 vehicles a day.
The other defects of the market are that the buildings are totally out of date and totally inadequate. There is no provision for the use of mechanical handling of foodstuffs and there is a considerable fire danger from the empty crates which are left in the area, which would never have been designated as a market if it had not been for Charles II giving the Earl of Bedford the opportunity to use it as a market place. I am sure that every hon. Member must

agree that as now Constituted Covent Garden Market is inadequate and out of date.
If one accepts that premise, one must admit in the context of the new London, which the hon. Lady and I agree to be essential, that a new site must be found and found quickly. Ever since the Covent Garden Market Authority came into being, in 1961, endless reports have been produced, two very effective and pointing to the need for some change.
Various sites have been considered and various objections have been made to some of them. The main problem with most of the sites considered was the traffic problem. A site near King's Cross was considered and another at Wood Lane, but both were dismissed out of hand as being not only bad for traffic but in the wrong place. There was a possible site at Beckton, in the East Ham—West Ham area, which had the possible advantage of being north of the river. However, it was on the wrong side of London in that it was considerably to the east while most of the market's customers are in the north-west and south-west of the city. It was eventually decided once again to look at the site at Nine Elms, not far from here.
The Nine Elms site has a number of very considerable advantages not only over the present site, but particularly over any other sites considered. First, it has very good rail facilities. This is important because of the produce coming to Covent Garden, about half of which is imported and half home grown. A lot of the home-grown produce comes from the area south of the Thames—from Kent, Hampshire and other areas in the south of England. Traffic bringing produce to the market would not have to use roads to anything like the extent that they are being used at present to feed Covent Garden. Handling between the rail head and the market would be that much easier.
Secondly, it has the advantage, which I think is the most important advantage of all, that it is really near the River Thames. At a time when traffic congestion in London is growing every day, surely it must be wise to site a market where it can use the River Thames as an artery through which to bring produce to it. Under the new plan it would be


possible to unload imported produce in the docks and bring it by lighter to a wharf which will have direct linkage with the market by overhead conveyor. This would also look to the day when those customers wanting to take their produce to the west of London could also use the river as a main artery. Therefore, from the river and rail point of view, Nine Elms scores over any other possible site.
How does one get to the present market today? One goes via Piccadilly Circus, the Strand, Kingsway and Oxford Circus. All the most congested areas of London are being used as through routes to Covent Garden. At a time when we are trying to rationalise London's serious traffic problem, we should be looking for a site where we can take some of the load off these thoroughfares.
I therefore ask the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham to think again. If we throw out the Bill and put our heads in the sand and say, "We will look for another site", what will happen? It will take perhaps years to find an alternative site. Even if we find one, will it have the obvious merit which the proposed site has? I believe that with the disappearance of the London County Council next month—or shall we say, its translation into the Greater London Council—and the planning of the new London, which I hope we all take seriously, it would be wise to start by taking the bull by the horns concerning this extremely controversial market place.
Let us start the era of the Greater London Council, not by being reactionary and against advance and progress, but by saying that here is a good plan to deal with a market which is so out of date, so handicapped by lack of facilities, and so harmful to the life blood of our Metropolis and indeed of the customers who use it, that we should welcome the opportunity to put this market somewhere where it is more likely not only to be of benefit to Londoners for the traffic reason and others which I have given, but will be able to give its customers an efficient up-to-date service free of the hazards of out-of-date equipment, buildings and congestion, which will go down as one of the marks of the Greater London Council accepting its new rôle, looking to the future and improving the life of our city

which would be of great advantage to its customers and to every Londoner.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I do not think that any hon. Member doubts that it is desirable to move the Covent Garden Market from its present site. Speaking for myself, I have no doubt that the right new site is in the Nine Elms area, but that does not mean that I agree with the proposals in the Bill and the layout in the deposited plan. I believe that that plan has serious defects and that there are grave objections to the scheme which the promoters are bringing before the House. Indeed, I consider it wholly unacceptable, and I want very briefly to say why.
I speak not only as a Member of Parliament directly involved because a portion of the area in the proposed plan is in my constituency, but as one who is interested in London matters as a whole, and particularly the transport problems of London.
My first point, which is similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), is that I do not think that the case has yet been made—possibly it will be made to the Select Committee—for the need to acquire 80 acres of land in this or any other area. It is far beyond the acreage of land now being used by the Covent Garden Market Authority, even if one takes into account the land occupied by the offices of those who have business there. I should want very strong evidence to convince me that an area of this size is required, particularly when it is proposed to build the new market in a fairly central London area—and one urgently required for housing. Moreover, I doubt whether it is right, in view of the pressure for housing accommodation and the priority which is generally accorded to building houses on surplus railway land, that the surplus land here should be allocated for marketing.
It is claimed by the promoters of the Bill, in the statement which they issued to us, that 2,000 people will lose their homes as a result of this proposal, but that, on the other hand, additional dwellings for 3,000 will be built under their plan. I have two comments to make on that. First, I am informed by the Lambeth Borough Council and the


Wandsworth Borough Council that not 2,000, but about 2,500 people, will be displaced. Secondly, the Authority proposes to build accommodation for the 3,000 people on large podiums above the parking area. The lorries coming in and out in the early hours of the morning, will cause an awful din to the intolerable annoyance of all those living there.
That seems to be ridiculous planning and it should be condemned. The Lambeth Borough Council, like myself, feels very strongly about this.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): If the Bill gets a Second Reading, and assuming that in Select Committee it is left as it is now, the developers could not just do the sort of things which my right hon. Friend is saying. They would have to submit to my Ministry a rehousing scheme under the Schedule of the Housing Act, 1957, and my right hon. Friend the Minister would have to approve it before any such work could go ahead.

Mr. Strauss: This, nevertheless, is the present Covent Garden proposal which is embodied in the promoters' plan. I feel confident that neither this House nor the Select Committee will accept it. Their housing proposals are wholly objectionable.
My other point on housing is this. If this land were developed for housing by the Lambeth Borough Council and the Wandsworth Borough Council jointly, as they would wish to do, accommodation would be provided not for 3,000, but for 4,000 people. Obviously, that is an important factor which should be borne in mind.
My next point is that there might be no need for many of the objections which are being put forward by myself and others if, at some stage, the Lambeth and Wandsworth Borough Councils had been consulted. They were never consulted at all. They never had an opportunity to put forward alternative plans. They have a very good alternative plan which I have carefully studied.
The new market is to be divided into various sections, some north of the railway and some to the south. I do not think that any objection could be

advanced to those north of the railway. It is an area which is already developed for commercial and industrial purposes. The southern site, however, is a residential area, and to inject into it a big commercial undertaking such as this is wholly wrong in principle.
If the Covent Garden Market is to be moved into that area, is it necessary to develop in the large area which it is proposed in this Bill to take over south of the railway? The answer is, no. A glance at the map shows that there is a considerable site on the northern side of the railway which is partly undeveloped derelict land and partly occupied by two old breweries, in fairly bad condition, adjoining Nine Elms depot.
Surely it would be much better that this area should be used for market purposes, involving no rehousing and no displacement, instead of the area south of the railway, which would cause considerable disturbance to the neighbourhood. Serious consideration should be given to this alternative proposal.

Mr. A. P. Costain: What is the approximate acreage of the land to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring?

Mr. Strauss: It is almost, but not quite, as big as the area to the south which it is proposed to turn over to market purposes.
That brings me to another point. I do not know whether consideration has been given to the possibility of developing the market, not on one floor, but on several floors. With modern devices of lifts and ramps, it should be quite possible to devise a system whereby some of the disposal of the produce is done at second-floor instead of ground-floor level. I do not know whether that is a reasonable suggestion—I do not know whether it has been considered—but when such a big development scheme is proposed in so congested an area where housing development is so desirable, the point is one which should be considered. I do not put it any stronger than that.
My next point concerns transport facilities. It is generally agreed that the existing transport facilities are wholly inadequate to deal with the new market. A large amount of new traffic will be generated by it and, moreover, most of


the lorries carrying the produce will be entering the streets adjoining the site in the rush hours between 8 and 10 a.m. and will add seriously to the congestion. The figures which have been produced as a result of a careful survey by the promoters of the Bill show that there might be an extra 1,000 or so vehicles per hour. This, on top of the naturally growing volume of traffic on the roads, would cause traffic chaos.
Certainly, the main road serving the market, the Nine Elms Road, would have to be widened. It is also certain that the existing bridge accommodation over the river would be unable to cope with the new traffic which the market will generate. The London Traffic Survey, published a short time ago, made this comment:
There is little reserve Thames crossing capacity in peak traffic hours between Vauxhall Bridge and Tower Bridge.
Anybody who has had the experience of crossing those bridges at peak traffic hours knows that they are full already, and they will have more traffic because of the natural increase in motor transport taking place.
If we are to have these additional 1,000 vehicles per hour attempting to cross the Thames bridges at the same time, impossible jams will be created. I do not put that forward as an argument against locating the market in the proposed area. It is however, an argument, and it is for this reason that I put it forward, that the market should not be permitted to operate until the necessary road improvements have taken place.
The Lambeth Borough Council urges, I think rightly, that the new market buildings should not be commenced until the issues and problems affecting traffic have been decided, so that we know, before any building for the new market takes place, that when it is ready the road facilities will be sufficient; and, secondly, that the market should not operate until the new traffic facilities have been completed. The improvement of the traffic facilities would inevitably mean either increasing the capacity of the existing bridges, which is a considerable matter in itself, or, as probably will have to be done one of these days anyhow, constructing a new bridge across the river. Unless

that is done, the traffic congestion in that part of London will be so serious as to bring vehicle movement literally to a standstill for a long period every morning.
I urge that my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Select Committee should seriously consider the undesirability of permitting London's bridges to be blocked and the traffic flow impeded and made impossible by the development of a market in this area, and that the market should be allowed to function only when the traffic facilities are adequate.
My next point is one which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central, in moving the rejection of the Bill. It seems to me to be quite wrong, indeed indefensible, that the layout of the new market should not be subject to planning authority and control. There is specific mention in Clause 18(3) of the Bill that development by the Authority
shall be deemed to be permitted development",
which means that no local authority will will have control over it. The Authority is primarily a commercial body. Its interests and objectives will be functional and it may give no, or very little, consideration to general aesthetic matters, or, indeed, any other matters, other than to promote the best development from the viewpoint of marketing.
It may well be that the buildings to be erected will be aesthetic monstrosities. It may be that petrol pumps and all sorts of installations might be built which from a planning point of view are highly undesirable. Under the Bill, no planning authority will be able to say nay.

Mr. Mellish: With respect to my right hon. Friend, that is not quite right. Under Clause 18(3) development for market purposes would be deemed to be development within Class XII of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963, but Class XII confers planning permission, and reserves certain matters—design, external appearance, means of access, siting within limits of deviation, and so on—for the decision of the local planning authority, and at the end of the day it would have a great deal to say about this.

Mr. Strauss: I hope that my hon. Friend is right, but the legal authorities who have advised the Lambeth Town Council and the town clerk are specific in the matter and they take the view that Clause 18, which reads as follows, is conclusive:
Development on the Nine Elms lands for the provision thereon of such facilities as aforesaid shall be deemed to be permitted development within Class XII of Part I of Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1963.
They have been legally advised that neither the Lambeth authority nor the Wandsworth authority need be asked to give planning permission for any development which is proposed. My hon. Friend says that that is wrong, and I must naturally accept what he says is the advice which has been given to him.

Dr. David Kerr: It seems to me that both my right hon. and my hon. Friend are right. The difference lies in the division of powers between the Covent Garden Market Authority and the local authority. What is giving my hon. Friend and me great concern is that the "end of the day" referred to by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be a little late to produce the necessary planning changes which the local authority wants.

Mr. Strauss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I put this forward as something which should be given careful consideration by the Select Committee, and I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important.
The other point which worries my council a little is that permission is given under the Bill to the Authority to acquire additional lands wherever it likes, whenever it likes, without any time limit. That does not seem to be right. If it requires additional land for some unforeseen purpose, no one will object. It may be very proper that it should be accorded that right, but it should be subject to some control, and, in particular, that it should be subject to some time limit.
My main objection to the Measure as it stands is that the siting plan of the proposed market is wrong. It is putting the main market building in an area which is at present devoted to housing. It is displacing a large number of people

unnecessarily, and consequently causing them grave inconvenience. I believe that the market could be put elsewhere in the area at no more cost, in a way which would be equally convenient, and, from the planning point of view, more desirable. This matter was not considered by the promoters, and the local councils were never consulted about whether they had alternative plans which they would like to have considered.
I suggest that the points which my hon. Friends and I have put forward are points of importance, and not of detail. We all agree that the market should be moved. I agree that this is probably the best area which can be found as an alternative. I am, however, exceedingly worried about the transport implications, and I want to be sure that the market will not operate until the transport problems have been solved. I want to be sure that the traffic flow over bridges and along Nine Elms Road will continue, and that there will not be intolerable jams in that part of London. In particular, I want to be sure that the best use is being made of the land available.
Above all, I want to be sure that the areas on the commercial and industrial side of the railways, which at present are not much used, are given priority for all this development. It may well be that if the Committee finds that there ought to be a change—and I am sure that strong arguments will be advanced for it—it will be necessary to bring in a supplementary Bill, but I think that it is better to have some delay in order to get the matter right.
I am sure that the Select Committee will give all these matters that intensive consideration which the importance of the Bill justifies. This is not a local question. It is a London problem. The new siting of this important market is a matter affecting all Londoners, not for a few years or decades, but for a 100 years or more, and if the decisions which are made are wrong, as a result of insufficient examination of alternative sites, it will be a tragedy.
I am prepared, as I am sure my hon. Friend is, to let the Bill go forward for the purpose of having all these problems considered, but if it comes back without some of the existing serious defects being remedied, we will have to look at it again carefully.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I had the honour of being a Member of the Select Committee when the Bill came before the House previously. I was then very much a new boy in this House, and I had very strong doubts about where Covent Garden Market should be placed. I did not then have sufficient experience of the ways of the House to put the case over as strongly as I would have wished. I rejoice that for once in my life I have a second chance, because I am certain that all hon. Members agree that the present siting is the wrong one. The problem is where is the right one?
I follow the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) with some trepidation, because everyone respects very much a person's judgment of his own constituency, particularly when he is a right hon. Member. My knowledge of that constituency is that I go through it every day in my car. I am well aware of the traffic problems. I am well aware of the problems of crossing Vauxhall Bridge. I have learnt these to my cost in hours of delay.
From a road traffic point of view this proposal gives us an excellent opportunity to replan an area which is one of the worst bottlenecks in the whole of the south of London. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that we are short of bridges. I suggest that we are short of bridges because too many cars pile up at Vauxhall Bridge waiting for the lights to change. I see in this scheme an exciting prospect of putting a tunnel as a fly-under under Vauxhall Bridge, and this redesigned market plan provides an excellent reason for doing that.
Instead of widening Nine Elms Road, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, I would leave it as it is, or consider shutting it altogether. I would divert that road along the river front into a tunnel under Vauxhall Bridge, coming up the other side. That would treble, if not quadruple, the effective use of Vauxhall Bridge. Furthermore, this site is particularly good because of its rail access.
I have another bee in my bonnet, which is that we do not export enough of our fruit. We always import fruit, but never export it. Through my Kent growers I have suggested that we should send apples back in the trains which bring

oranges and lemons to this country. If we had Covent Garden at a rail terminal, there would be better facilities for the cheaper exporting of fruit and vegetables, particularly our special fresh English lettuce and apples which the Continent ought to want, and, if it does not want them now, we should do something to make sure that it wants them in future. There are real possibilities.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall has put forward alternative proposals. He has suggested that the market is in too big an area. I have some comparative figures concerning the areas of markets in other parts of the world. I am interested to see that the Nine Elms Market is planned for 92 acres, with a planned turnover of 1¼ million tons, plus £10 million worth of flowers. That gives an annual volume of trade per acre of 13,600 tons. The equivalent figures for New York are 1½ million tons and 126 acres, giving an annual volume of only 11,900 tons. In Paris the equivalent in tonnage per acre drops to the low figure of 3,000. Following that pattern of trade-to-area, which is the practical way of looking at it, we find the figures for Sheffield, Lyons, Stuttgart, Hamburg and Toronto are about 6,000 or 7,000 tons per acre.
I agree that the question should be examined to see whether we could not have a multi-storey building. The question of a helicopter site on the roof should also be considered. That would provide great advantages, because we have so few areas available in London for this sort of thing. Perhaps it could be planned as a future heliport.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has given us an assurance that the Ministry will look at the plans most carefully. Nobody would ever accuse the Ministry of being negligent in respect of housing accommodation, and that question, besides the question of traffic and of a heliport, will have to be answered as part of the solution of this problem. But we shall not be able to make progress with any of these items unless the Bill is allowed to go forward. We have wasted three years already because it has not been possible to arrive at a decision.
I blame myself for not doing more, three years ago, to make it apparent


that the market at Covent Garden was not in the right place. I ease my conscience with the thought that that was the first Select Committee on which I sat, and, furthermore, that we had some learned counsel against us, and I did not feel so confident in my opinions then as I do now. In my view the Bill ought to be allowed to go through. The planning possibilities, both rail and road, besides the question of a heliport, should be considered. I support what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said; let the Bill go to a Select Committee, together with the advice that has been put forward in the debate, and let us get this market going. It is long overdue.

7.53 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The House may find it convenient if I intervene at this stage to give an indication of the Government's attitude towards the Bill. It is a pleasant change from the controversy about farm prices. But since we are dealing with a matter which affects the horticulture industry, I am involved as the Minister responsible for that industry.
The Covent Garden Market Act, 1961, required the Covent Garden Market Authority either to improve the present market or to provide a new one within the Covent Garden area. Even in 1961 some of us thought that the wrong course was being followed. In this respect I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). We would all probably agree that the market must be moved from the Covent Garden area. I am sorry that I was not present to hear the beginning of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett), but I am sure that he will agree that we need a new market. This was argued by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson).
A point of view was also put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). In the end, however, I think that he will agree that many of the matters which he raised, which I know are important and which affect many boroughs in this area, must be considered in detail in the Select Committee. He will surely agree that we need a major market. It is, therefore,

right to do something. For a long time, even when in opposition, I argued that there was a need to create a new major market along the lines which have been suggested today.
I assert that we all now agree that the market must be moved from the Covent Garden area. The present arrangements are hopelessly inefficient, and costs are unnecessarily high. I cannot see how anyone can disagree about that. It would be prohibitively expensive to build a new market within the Covent Garden area, and even if this were done it would not solve the traffic problems of the present market.
The Bill would enable the Authority to build what will, in effect, be a new "Covent Garden Market" at Nine Elms. The Government fully support this proposal, and they gave their consent to the introduction of the Bill. The site at Nine Elms is also generally agreed. My predecessor announced in the House on 13th July, 1964, that the Authority has been told that it was reasonable for it to proceed with the drafting of a Private Bill for this purpose.
I am advised that the site of the proposed new market at Nine Elms is acceptable to all those who will earn their livelihoods in the new market, whether they are market tenants, porters, retailers or other buyers, or growers or importers who consign produce to the market. It is important to have that on the record. All these interests are frustrated by the conditions in the present market, and I am sure that they are looking forward to the opportunity of trading in a modern market on a new site.
All my colleagues who have been involved in this matter for a long time have argued for new conditions and new arrangements, and for a new market on a new site. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is satisfied that there is no more suitable competing use for the Nine Elms site as a whole, and that there are no objections on general planning grounds to locating the new market there. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been present during the debate and has already intervened to clear up some matters in respect of which there will be discussions in the Select Committee.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has concluded that Nine Elms is acceptable from the traffic point of view, especially having regard to the general pattern of road and rail facilities likely in London in the longer-term. Like the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I have been through this area daily and have been doing so for a long time. I know the area well. I therefore hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. In our support of the Authority's choice of the Nine Elms site we are not committed to the detailed provisions of the Bill, which it will be the duty of the Authority to defend when the Bill is considered by the Select Committee, together with the petitions that have been lodged against it.

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend has said that the Minister of Transport had agreed that from the transport point of view the market might well be located here. Would he go further along the lines that I argued earlier? Is he aware that in preparing this scheme the traffic experts reported—and the report has been published—that in adopting an improvement programme it was essential that the traffic programme should be completed before the market programme was developed? Does he know whether or not the Minister of Transport agrees with that? It is all-important.

Mr. Peart: As Minister of Agriculture, and being responsible for marketing, I have had discussions over a long period with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. One of the major decisions that I took when I became Minister was to initiate discussions on this matter. We have had those discussions.
All I can say to my right hon. Friend is that if we do not not introduce the Bill until we are completely satisfied, there will be no Bill. No action will be taken. There will be delay and frustration. If there are still details to be worked out, they can be discussed by the Select Committee and representations made. There is no reason why further discussion should not go on. I do not want further discussion to be a reason for the frustration of the introduction of this Bill. Although there are problems at present, their nature will change. Even if we come to an agreement now on traffic

problems, who knows what the situation may be in five, six or seven years' time. There are wider matters affecting the transport position.
If we do not do anything now, that would be fatal. I advise my hon. Friends who are saying that approval should not be given to the Bill that that would be a terrible disaster not only for horticulture and the planning of the new market, but for London itself. I mean that sincerely and I hope that these matters may be considered by the Select Committee.
There is the problem of petitions which have been lodged against the Bill. These will be considered. There have been petitions regarding the precise boundaries of the land proposed for acquisition. The matter was raised by my right hon. Friend. I do not wish to comment on that. I make the general comment that 70 or 80 acres which the Authority wishes to acquire is none too large an area in which to construct a modern market where it is essential to provide plenty of elbow room. I have made a study of marketing conditions in other countries, where the provision of modern markets has been embarked on while this country has been left behind. An area of 70 acres is not unreasonable for the construction of a modern market where it is essential to have proper facilities.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is the only case where a modern market is being recited so close to the heart of a great city?

Mr. Peart: This has been the subject of many reports and studies. The simple fact is that in the centre of London we have an outdated market which should be removed. I have considered all the sites and the evidence and I consider that in all the circumstances a market at Nine Elms, where there are road and rail communications and other facilities, would be correct and sensible. It will improve the trading and commercial position in London. For many reasons, and because of the need to use the area which will be vacated for other purposes and provide opportunities for progressive development, the Government take the view that I have put forward.
I have said that the first step will be for the Authority to obtain the powers which it is now seeking. The Government are not committed at this stage on financial details or timing regarding the construction of the new market. The Authority cannot frame precise estimates and draw up plans until it knows just what area of land it will be authorised to acquire. I should have thought that every hon. Member would accept that. Clause 30 of the Bill increases the borrowing powers of the Authority to a total of £45 million. It has been estimated that a market, with the layout and design adopted for the purpose of the Authority's feasibility study, would cost between £31 million and £36 million. Provision must also be made for the Authority's indebtedness in respect of its present property at Covent Garden, and, allowing for a safety margin, the Authority considers—and the Government have accepted—that a total provision of £45 million is reasonable.
There may be views about the wisdom of dealing with Covent Garden in isolation. Certainly, we should like to consider the distribution of markets for fruit and vegetables, both within the Greater London Area and nationally, but whatever conclusion we may come to, the Government are satisfied that there is a case for a major central market performing the same functions as the present Covent Garden market. Whatever arguments we may have about the future of regional planning the Government have come to the conclusion that there is a need for a major central market.
It remains for me to say something in general terms about the future of the Covent Garden site when the market is moved to Nine Elms. This move will open up an exciting possibility of the proper redevelopment of one of the most important areas in the very heart of Central London. I ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind that here is an opportunity to do something which could capture the imagination not only of the people of London, but of the country as a whole. I stress this because I think it important. This is a matter for the planning authorities and I have no doubt that the Greater London Council, in consultation with the new Camden and

Westminster Councils, will seize the opportunity to produce a really bold and imaginative plan for the comprehensive redevelopment of the area.
There have been certain criticisms in petitions against the Bill of the powers which the Authority is seeking in Clause 29. That will be for consideration by the Select Committee and I make the point that, while the Authority has no functions in relation to the redevelopment of the Covent Garden area when it ceases to be used for the marketing of fruit and vegetables, we cannot deny its interest in the future as an owner of property in the area. Clearly, the Authority will be concerned with the price realised on the disposal of this site, since if a loss were incurred, additional charges would have to be paid by the tenants of the new market at Nine Elms.
My hope will be that the proposals of the planning authorities for the future of the Covent Garden area will proceed in step with the plans of the Authority for moving the market to Nine Elms. These are important questions which we are discussing and I hope what I have said will be helpful to hon. Members in clarifying a number of issues. I invite the House to agree that the purposes of the present Bill are right and acceptable, and that we should allow it to proceed for detailed examination by the Select Committee. We shall certainly consider—it will be our duty to consider—any detailed criticisms, but the main principle is right, that we should move the market from the existing site to a new site at Nine Elms, and provide opportunities for some imaginative redevelopment to be carried out in the centre of London.
For these reasons, I hope that hon. Members will allow the Bill to go forward on Second Reading.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I work what the railwaymen used to call a "double home turn". I wish to support the Second Reading of the Bill not only as a resident in Cornwall and a Member for Parliament for a Cornish constituency representing an area which sends a great deal of agriculture and horticulture produce to London, but also as a resident in Kennington and a constituent of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I was interested in the point made by the


right hon. Gentleman. Every hon. Member who has spoken has mentioned the hopeless unsuitability of the present Covent Garden market and how outdated it is.
However, they have not stressed the point that this is not merely a matter of inconvenience to London; it actually results in a loss of income to those living in the remoter parts of the country. If there is any delay in the rail or road transport conveying produce from the remoter areas on the way to London, it results in the lorry taking such produce from the terminal to Covent Garden arriving late in the queue in market area and a lower price obtained by that producer who loses the best of the market because of the congestion round Covent Garden. That presents a serious problem to growers in my constituency.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall raised a number of points. I think that he was exaggerating road congestion to some extent, because, as I see it, the great advantage of the Nine Elms site is that a great deal of the traffic can come direct by rail. At present, nothing can come direct by rail to Covent Garden. It all has to be transhipped, put into a lorry and added to the congestion in the queue of other lorry traffic from other parts of the country waiting to unload at Covent Garden. But at new Nine Elms, as has been pointed out, not only would the rail traffic which at present goes to Hill Green, Bishopsgate and Nine Elms go there direct, but there are lines down to the West Country.
It would be possible to bring rail traffic from the West Country into Nine Elms and deliver there direct. We have heard also reference to traffic from the docks by water, which would relieve the lorry congestion into Nine Elms. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the number of extra vehicles going into Nine Elms, mentioned in the Report. I have not been able, while he was talking, to check the figures, but my recollection is that a great deal of that estimated extra traffic consisted of the motor cars of persons to be employed at Nine Elms. It was argued that there would be an increase in that traffic.

Mr. Strauss: I was referring to the number of lorries leaving the market in

the morning to deliver the goods to the shops all over London, particularly in the West End.

Mr. Wilson: There was also a reference in that Report, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman referred, about the number of employees' motor cars. I think that one hon. Member mentioned the possibility of there being several markets other than in the central area. Of course, the answer to that is that in London there is a large population in the central area and a large number of retailers catering for them. It is estimated that there are 1¾ million people resident in the central area and 1½ million commuters coming in every day. They have to be supplied with fruit and vegetables, and it is convenient that there should be a central market to supply these retailers. It would be most inconvenient and lead to greater traffic congestion if the market were on the perimeter and these central retailers had to be supplied from a greater distance. In that respect, Nine Elms would be a considerable improvement.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties of having a car park underneath residential accommodation. I was surprised at his saying that, because, as he knows, he and I and other Members of Parliament have been to a great number of continental countries to see traffic conditions there. If he casts his mind back to Stockholm, I think that he will remember that one of the things which they showed us was a considerable car park underneath a block of flats.
I do not see why, if it is properly constructed, it is necessarily either noisy or inconvenient to have a car park below residential property. It is something which we shall have to accept in London in the future if we are to have more space and at the same time to provide for living accommodation in the central areas. We shall have to allow car parking beneath buildings which are inhabited. It already takes place to a considerable extent.
I do not think that we should assume that the lorries which carry horticultural and agricultural produce must necessarily be noisy and objectionable. It is surely a matter for the Minister of Transport to see that that does not happen, that they are properly maintained and do not issue


vast clouds of black smoke or make horrible noises. I should have thought that that difficulty could have been overcome.
I agree that there are many points which need looking at in Committee or during later stages of the Bill, but I am quite sure that it would be most unfortunate to delay the Bill. There has been too much talk about the future of Covent Garden already and I should have thought that the proper course would be to give the Bill a Second Reading. If there is any necessity to have alternative arrangements, at least we will have made a start by having on the Statute Book the necessary legal provisions, so that there will not be any delay if this scheme is carried out, even if it is necessary to alter it to some extent.

3.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Many of us will have been enormously relieved to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture give expression to the view that all which is being required of us this evening is to give approval to the broad principles of the Bill. Had he not said that, I think that a number of us might have found it necessary to advise my hon. Friend to press his Motion to its logical conclusion.
As it is, he may feel that the assurances which he has been given are sufficient to enable him to allow the Bill to go to the next stage. As a newcomer to the House, I understand that a Select Committee is capable of examining a Bill much more in general principle than an ordinary Standing Committee. If this is the case, a number of us will feel a good deal happier than we otherwise might have felt.
When one examines the Bill in detail, one finds more Clauses which have something wrong with them than Clauses which have something right with them. I think that the Select Committee will have a big job on its hands. The only point on which I could go along with the Bill is to say that I am persuaded that it is right that Covent Garden should be moved from its present site to a site somewhere in the vicinity of that suggested in the Bill.
I shall not follow the course of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who was suggesting

that the site should be located solely in in Wandsworth, by returning the compliment and suggesting that it should be located solely in Lambeth. I feel that we might reasonably say that the Bill is a very good Bill from the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture, but far from being a good Bill from the point of view of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
In balancing the necessities in this very crowded area of London, the necessities of a large and efficient market have outweighed the very great necessity of a large amount of residential accommodation in that area. When we find ourselves faced with the position that large numbers of people will be moved from their residences to another area, we have to be satisfied that what is being done is right. The Authority is seeking powers of compulsory acquisition, very wide powers, which I should have thought would have exercised the minds of some hon. Members opposite. These are, of course, necessary in some degree, but it seems to me that these powers are not sufficiently covered by the other powers which are to be exercised by the local authorities responsible for the area.
Let me give one example of that point. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave us an assurance from the Front Bench, but I think that, when it comes down to it, what will determine the matter is the law. I think that people who, with me, have served on the town planning committee of the London County Council, would agree that the consequences of giving an authority permitted development powers is that it removes from the local authority—from the Greater London Council and from the borough councils—all-over planning control altogether. It leaves only some powers in relation to the aesthetic appearance of buildings and an extremely limited power, which could only be exercised in certain circumstances, in relation to siting.
Therefore, this is a loss of all-over planning control, which, in a metropolis of the size of London, is the essential basis of planning control. The loss of all-over planning control is something


which should be looked at carefully by the Select Committee.
A number of points have been made and I will not repeat them. Under the Bill the new Authority will acquire compulsory powers to purchase not only residences, but also schools—for example, Springfield Primary School and blocks of flats. in Deeley Road. Some of them are post-war blocks of flats. They will be compulsorily acquired and demolished. This will create serious difficulties both for the Greater London Council and for the Inner London Education Authority, for there will be the problem not only of rehousing people, but of making educational provision for their children. These matters need to be looked at very carefully in the Select Committee.
Perhaps the most important point is that this marketing authority is asking in the Bill not only for these enormous powers, which it may need, subject to control, in south-west London, but also to retain the power to plan and control its old Covent Garden area. That is utterly and totally wrong. I would go as far as to say that it is monstrous to ask for such powers. That the Covent Garden Market Authority, not content with doing what is necessary in the new area, should seek to retain planning authority and should abrogate the power of the Greater London Council and the new London boroughs in that area would be to make nonsense of the imaginative suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that this is a very great opportunity.
Of course it is, but this great opportunity can be made the most of only by planning authorities which have all the machinery of planning and all the experience of planning in their hands—by authorities such as the Greater London Council and the new London boroughs, which will have architects and town planning departments and which have the experience and "know-how" and, indeed, the public incentive to make of the present Covent Garden area a new entertainment area in London containing a substantial residential proportion, a new shopping area, and some new theatres. This would create the sort of place which would make London a

metropolis of which we should be even more proud than we are already.
I therefore hope that when my right hon. Friend said that the Government were not committed to the details of the Bill he was using the word "details" in a very broad sense, and was telling us that it will be the intention in Select Committee to look at some of these matters—to accept, as we all do, the absolute necessity of getting Covent Garden Market out of its present position, but making sure that in doing so we do it to the advantage of London and Londoners and not to their disadvantage.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, which in our view is the logical outcome of the 1959 White Paper on Horticulture and the 1961 Act establishing the Covent Garden Market Authority. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames), the former Minister of Agriculture, gave a clear assurance in Committee on the 1961 Act that if the Authority found a better site outside Covent Garden the Minister would not stand in the way of the Authority if it proposed the legislation which we are tonight considering.
The Authority has found it impossible to develop the small 10-acre site at Covent Garden because of the traffic congestion and lack of space. For a modern market, size must be adequate. Motor vehicles are still getting bigger in this country; we are coming more and more to Continental sizes. Before the 1961 Act the Nine Elms site was not seriously considered because it was thought that 23 acres of an inconvenient shape and a bad position, cut in half by the main road, were all that was available. Since then, a further examination has shown quite a different situation. As a result of the electrification of large parts of the Southern Region, old railway accommodation and sheds are no longer required, which makes this much larger site available.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) doubted the necessity of a large size, but I can assure him from Continental markets which I have studied and from all experience of modern market construction that a substantial floor space is essential. The 60 acres which


would be available for fruit and vegetables south of the main line, plus nine acres of the flower market north of Nine Elms Lane and 11 acres for car parking, is a very reasonable and modest size. In addition to those 80 acres, there will be a further 12 acres continuing in railway hands which will be closely associated with the market.
The Minister agreed with me on the need for this sizeable floor space. The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) queried whether this was the only modern market being built in the centre of a great City. London is very much bigger than other great cities. Paris obviously springs to mind as the other city going for a modern market at present, and the overall size of the city is very different from that of London, so that the problem cannot be considered on all-fours.
Having said that, we must realise that the annual volume of trade in tons per acre on this new site of a total of 92 acres will be such that London will get a greater through-put of tonnage per acre than any other modern market in the world. It is hoped to get through 13,600 tons per acre per year, whereas New York gets through less than 12,000 tons per acre per year and the figure for Paris is as low as 3,300 tons per acre. This very heavy loading per acre is a certain justification for this site.
It is hoped that if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading tonight the various points which have been put forward will be considered in Select Committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett) moved his Amendment in a most reasonable and acceptable way, looking forward, I feel, to the Select Committee. But the viability of this scheme depends not only on the size being adequate but also on two financial provisions. First, the Authority must be free to dispose of its present site at a realistic price; and my hon. Friends and I welcomed the remarks of the Minister on this point. Secondly, provision was made in the Act that the Treasury would meet one-third of the cost. This must continue, because it the capital cost were to rise the rental to the traders would rise. This would have the adverse effect of raising the price of produce, something which we must avoid at all cost.
Much of the debate has turned on the transport situation. It must be remembered that there has been a complete change in the transport view since the 1961 Act came into being. The river is being used to a far greater extent for the carriage of goods from the docks, which makes Nine Elms a particularly attractive site and which rules out King's Cross, which has been mentioned.
Then there is the possibility of the Channel Tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) mentioned the possibility of horticultural exports. It is essential, therefore, that the railhead should be convenient both for the Channel Tunnel and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) said, for the West Country. I happened about this time last night to be standing on the platform at Taunton Station when a vast train load of broccoli coming from my hon. Friend's constituency came through. How much more convenient had it been able to go to the Nine Elms site rather than having to offload and be dealt with at Covent Garden.
The market should not only be convenient for rail and water deliveries, but Nine Elms has the great advantage that the site is handy for the majority of the traders concerned. It is handy for west, north-west, south and central London. This is vital because while hon. Members have been complaining about traffic congestion, they must remember that the alternative sites which were offered would, in their turn, have caused worse traffic congestion in London.
Had the market gone to the Beckton site, retailers' vehicles would have had to cross the whole of east London at the rush hour and back again, whereas this is the shortest possible van mileage. I stress "van mileage" because I am dealing now with retailers coming to collect goods from the market, since suppliers in the main deliver out of rush hours. There is, therefore, no serious problem for them.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned that there would be an extra 1,000 vehicles on our roads. We all recognise that the roads in the immediate vicinity are overdue for improvement and by 1971 they must have been replaced.

Mr. George Jeger: Has the hon. Gentleman realised that retailers


who go to the market to collect their produce also travel outside the rush hour, since they want to get their produce back to their shops so that they may open their premises before the rush hour commences?

Mr. Wells: I appreciate that, but that would not be the case were they going to Beckton because of the long haul. It is one of the advantages of the Nine Elms site.
Another vital consideration must be the bridges. There can be no doubt that Kent traffic and southern traffic coming to and returning from the existing Covent Garden site must cross the Thames bridges. Further, since the Channel Tunnel is envisaged, any goods going to any alternative site, except the one we are discussing, would have to go over a rail bridge and, as hon. Members who have knowledge of south-east England realise, the Thames bridges of the railway system are already seriously overloaded. Thus, from the point of view of the rail bridge system as well as the road bridge situation—assuming that there will be a big improvement in the immediate vicinity there—Nine Elms is again the optimum site.
Some doubt has been expressed about whether the flower market will also be moved. If the right hon. Member for Vauxhall had his way, and there was a smaller site, it would be difficult to move the flower market, but if we left it behind there would be the unhappy shuffling to and fro of vehicles. This is virtually unavoidable because in the height of the summer at least one-fifth of all market vehicles carry a mixture of flowers, fruit and vegetables. Therefore, unless the flower market can go, too, there will be this shuffling. I hope that when the Bill is considered in Select Committee it will be agreed that the flower market should also be moved. There is, of course, the heliport possibility, which has been mentioned as an export potential. I believe that a heliport on the site would help traders to get exotic fruit into their shops in much fresher condition, so there are considerable advantages.
Besides being the great national price-setting market, there is no doubt that the location of the principal national market is vital to the traders and the people of western and central London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro, has reminded us of the large number of people in this area who have to be fed daily, but in addition to those resident there, we have between 8,000 and 9,000 catering establishments as well as hospitals and schools.
Naturally, this site will attract some of the market trade away from the Borough Market, but I believe that this would be no bad thing in the long-term because there is already serious traffic congestion in the Borough, while the market there has only some £10 million value of through-put a year as compared with the £73 million at Covent Garden. Therefore, if we are to build a great national market, it is sensible that it should be concentrated in the proposed area. Various hon. Members have raised town planning considerations. The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central complained that the development powers would be taken out of the hands of the local authority, but the position is that the Market Authority will develop its site fully for its commercial purposes. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall complained that there was a risk of buildings going up that were not in line with aesthetic taste. From what we have seen of the various plans and models that have been available to hon. Members, I do not think that we need have excessive fears on this point. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's own borough council has seen these models, so it should not have any real doubts in the long-term about aesthetic suitability—

Mr. Strauss: I gathered from what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has said that the boroughs are the planning authorities, and will have planning responsibility and control of this development. If he can give me that assurance, I am entirely satisfied.

Mr. Wells: I heard all that the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that he was quite right. I think that we are all content with his assurance.
Housing has been particularly mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central and by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. We have to face the fact that the great bulk of the housing in this area is, as the


Authority says, nearly all old, of very little value and already due for renewal, so the rather more than 2,000 people who have to be rehoused will be rehoused in very much better conditions than they enjoy at present.
In answer to the criticism about buildings on stilts, we have the resolution which the London County Council passed at its meeting on 14th July last:
We do not think that it can necessarily be assumed that residential development in the area would be desirable.
It also referred to the difficulty of creating a tolerable residential environment so close to Battersea Power Station and the Nine Elms Gasworks. The right hon. Gentleman's constituents will be much better off.
It is necessary to remember that a market must be located where there is an adequate pool of labour available to service it in the very uncongenial hours that have to be worked. The possibility of siting a market at the northern or the north-western fringe of London would raise grave difficulties from the point of view of a pool of labour. From the housing and siting point of view there is little to complain about.
The Nine Elms site would fit realistically into any larger plan for the reorganisation of London markets of the type envisaged by the Runciman Committee. Naturally the recommendations of the Runciman Committee were rejected on a variety of grounds, which all hon. Members appreciate. It is an underlying thought that the day may come, due to the changed methods of trading, when something kindred to the Runciman Committee's suggestions may have to be adopted. This would make an admirable site for a start.
The alternative sites were not considered by the Select Committee on the 1961 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe served on that Committee. Tonight he has urged on us the value of this site. The question has been asked, not in the House tonight, but elsewhere on many previous occasions, if it is necessary to have a new market at all in view of the changed patterns of trading, with the tendency of wholesalers and growers to by-pass markets and deal with other outlets. It is surely necessary on two scores to keep a great national market—first, as a price-

setting mechanism; and, secondly, it has been clearly shown that over the past 12 years there has been no decline in trade in Covent Garden itself. This is partly due to the increased population in the South-East.
These changing conditions of trading must be faced. Nearly all horticulturists are anxious to have better grading. The Minister of Agriculture is training people at present in this relatively new art. The fact remains that, when grades come, produce will also sell on quality and condition as well as on grade. For this reason, it is essential that there should be a price-setting central market readily available to all who are interested.
The French system of modern horticultural markets includes a supply of shops and wholesale establishments which offer other foodstuffs for sale to retailers who come to buy. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall suggested that the Authority should look again at the possibility of a two-storey market. In the modern Continental markets I have visited in the past three years I have seen in every case the necessity for a single-storey market, and I do not think that we can escape from this in Great Britain today. What we can learn from the Continental markets is the possibility of combining this with other foodstuffs in addition to horticultural produce in the future. We must accept this as a reasonable thought for some future date.
At the time of the 1961 Act it would have been very difficult to have given the Authority the wide powers to seek other sites which it is now doing, because the 1961 Act was a hybrid Measure and, had the Authority which was then being created had very much wider powers, it would have been almost impossible for the objectors to know to what they were objecting. The right hon. Gentleman for Vauxhall objected tonight to the new Clause offering the Authority wide powers to require land elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman is, in a way, echoing the thought that must have passed through the minds of those who drafted the 1961 Act. I believe that, if the Authority is to have a free hand, it should not have to come to Parliament for new legislation every four years. Naturally, my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends are anxious


that the Authority should have as wide powers today as are realistic for its needs.
We on this side of the House view this as a great scheme for the benefit of horticulture and the consumer and as of inestimable benefit to central London. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.45 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: I agree, of course, that faced with the situation with which we are faced in Covent Garden today, with this insupportable monstrosity of a market, it is no wonder that we are all in a terrible hurry to get out. It is no wonder that, whatever site is chosen, one can easily point out its superior qualities in relation to the existing site. There is nothing exciting or particularly convincing about this. What we object to in the Bill is the great danger we see in it that in about five or 10 years' tie precisely the same condition of traffic congestion, overcrowding and bad planning will be happening in this new site after the expenditure of several scores of millions of pounds and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) will then be complaining that he is taking telephone messages from lorry drivers that they have been stuck on Battersea Bridge for two hours, even two days, trying to get into the market.
This is our basic concern. We acknowledge the difficulty of finding sites, and that of all the sites examined this is outstandingly the best and offers the greatest possibilities. But not enough has yet been said about the traffic problem. Let us get one thing right. The traffic consulting engineers who advised the market Authority pointed out that the peak hours of traffic for the market were between 8 and 10 o'clock, corresponding very closely with the peak hour of commuter traffic.
Moreover, there is the quality of this traffic. Some of us who drive on London roads have great cause to fear it, not because the vehicles are not skilfully driven but because their size, dimensions, speed and acceleration mean that their effect on traffic is not to be measured solely by the number of vehicles involved. It is estimated that there will be about 800 of these vehicles per hour at peak market hours, and

this time is roughly the peak hour of traffic on Southwark Bridge. To add this peak hour traffic to the existing system round Nine Elms would be quite ludicrous.
We have said on London County Council that we must have some assurance about the road development programme which we are at present undertaking. I recognise that London County Council is a dying authority, but it has said during its lifetime that, with the road programme building up towards £20 million a year, the road authority, whether L.C.C. or G.L.C., will be faced with a difficult dilemma. Either it will have to rephase this road programme to produce urgently the necessary improvements in the Nine Elms area, or it must expect a considerable increase in spending powers and Government grants to add the urgently needed programme to its existing one. I do not have to emphasise the great difficulties which the Bill will impose upon the roads authority even in terms of the existing programme.
There are, however, two related matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Firstly, I will not go into the question of the bridges. This has been discussed and I cannot usefully add to it, but I want to refer to the proposed road development at Vauxhall Cross. This is absolutely strategic to the road pattern around Nine Elms. On the London County Council we were anticipating with a certain amount of excitement this two-tier development which we had had on the stocks for a long time. It was to cost about £3½ million.
Recently, about a year or so ago, owing to the town planning provisions involved at the time and the need to acquire a building, the costs rocketed to about £7½ million. I ask the House to bear this in mind—£7½ million when the road programme of the London County Council at this moment is less than £20 million annually. This new development, if it is decided to go ahead with it on the basis of there being a reasonable return on such a large investment, will still, in terms of the plans originally considered by the council, not be adequate in its reserve capacity to cope with the additional traffic generated by the Nine Elms site for the market.
I take, next, the point about the heliport, which has been referred to but not in sufficient detail. The proposed heliport is bang on top of the Nine Elms market site. When I say that, I do not mean that it is physically on top of the market, but the suggestion we have from the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), that we should develop the market site by having the heliport on the roof, really demonstrates that the quality of the problem is not fully appreciated.
It has been calculated in the studies of the proposed heliport that, in 10 years, passenger traffic would develop to about 1½ million passengers a year. One would need a jolly big roof with a great deal of reinforcement to cope with that number of passengers. But, more than that, it would engender road traffic and traffic problems within the market site to add to the general run-around problems of the ordinary delivery, pick up and take away business of the market, and this would make the whole situation within the market site quite intolerable. I do not think that the suggestion is serious. I describe it in those terms merely in order to put the record straight.
What is now proposed is to have the heliport not actually within the 92 acres of the new market site but so adjacent to it that the roads authority must regard the heliport and the market site as virtually one in terms of traffic generation. if the heliport reaches anything like its expected level of development, traffic generation will be of the order of 400 or 500 vehicles, that is, approximately equivalent to the traffic generated at peak hours at one of London's main line stations. Clearly, then, there is a demand not only for extra bridge capacity over the Thames but for a very considerable improvement in existing road capacity in the immediate area.
Without going into questions of expense, I observe merely that the market authority will not have the expense imposed upon it. The expense will fall upon the roads authority and, presumably, 75 per cent. will fall upon the Exchequer. This is something which the market Authority will be getting away with a little on the cheap.
There has been reference to planning responsibility in respect of both the new market site and the existing market site.

I take the latter first. It is no secret that the problems of redeveloping the existing site, so far from being exciting, as described by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, are daunting. As far as I can judge from my fringe studies of the matter on the London County Council, about the only thing we can hope to do on the Covent Garden site is to pull down every building and turn it into public open space. Every other consideration could well lead to a generation of traffic which would nullify any attempt to improve amenity in this much abused area. I do not say that this is the only solution, but it seems to be the easy solution. Everything else would be extremely difficult.
There are certain problems which should be dealt with by the Bill but which are not. To begin with, the existing use rights in the Covent Garden area, if they are not extinguished under the Bill, could lead to a perpetuation of office development, even under the existing control of office policy which the Government are trying to push through. It could still leave us with a level of office development which, again, would produce a congestion and loss of amenity in the area which none of us wants to see. The Bill should extinguish existing use rights.
As for the development of the Covent Garden area as it exists, it is my firm view—this is, perhaps, not something which one could put in the Bill—that the only course to take is for the Greater London Council to slap a compulsory purchase order on it at the first possible moment and develop it in a responsible way, with—this is so important—all the adjacent developments. Just down the road we are still thinking and worrying about the Piccadilly Circus development. Are we to have a development here right on top of that which will not take into account all the problems of traffic and amenity which will be thrown up by the Piccadilly Circus development?

Mr. Mellish: I should like to put on the record that my right hon. Friend the Minister is issuing planning regulations which will make certain that it is the Greater London Council which will be the planning authority for this very important area to facilitate the planning of redevelopment.

Dr. Kerr: If the debate has done nothing else, the fact that it has brought forth that news makes our rather patient rest on the back benches very well worth while. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that announcement.
But there are other problems of planning at the new market site. I do not wish to make things too difficult for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but these are points which are worrying us. On the new market site the problems which arise are similar to those that I have already described in relation to the old one. There is a county primary school. There is a site reserved for the future progress and development of the Brixton School of Building, one of London's most important colleges of further education. Both sites will be lost. What—this is the question which concerns us—is to be the responsibility of the new market Authority for replacing those sites? Is it once again to fall on the shoulders of the local authority? More than this, the market Authority is proposing to develop 3,000 dwellings holding perhaps 10,000–12,000 population.

Mr. John Wells: It is 3,000 people.

Dr. Kerr: I am much obliged. It is 3,000 people who will require the amenities of education, health services and open spaces, which must always be the responsibility of the local authority. We are asking that a much clearer division of planning powers should be laid down in the Bill to enable this to continue, and until this is done, we have the very gravest misgivings about giving a Second Reading to the Bill when it is in a form which will damage the interests of people living in the area.
Reference has been made—I am sorry to go back to the question of traffic, but it is part of the planning problem—to carriage of goods on the river. This, again, displays a certain lack of technical sophistication in approaching the problem. Every barge that comes up the river has to be loaded somewhere. The produce is not loaded straight on to the barge from the farm. One has to bear in mind the traffic from the farm to the riverside. Similarly, one not only has to off-load the barge for delivery of goods at the new market site but one generates very much more road traffic in those terms than appears to be suspected.

Mr. John Wells: The hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. The barge traffic is not barge traffic in that sense. It is lighter traffic from the docks dealing with imported goods. Far from increasing the burden on the roads, the great increase which we have seen in recent months and years in the use of the Thames will lessen the road traffic. It is not traffic from the farms at all. It is direct from the docks. This is already taking place.

Dr. Kerr: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and thank him for the correction.
I turn now to housing. We could argue about densities interminably. However, the housing density proposed for the new site is 150 persons per acre. This is higher than is customary in London, where the maximum for most purposes is usually regarded as being 136 per acre. If one takes into account the loss of railway land which might be available, the net increase, if we go ahead on the present basis, will scarcely make anyone happy, particularly in this area.
Moreover, the local authorities once again will have to "carry the can" for the interim overspill while the site is being developed. About 2,500 people are being involved in the rehousing problem, although, to be fair, one must take into account the development schemes already in the pipeline, so that perhaps, in the end, the number of people involved through the overspill aspect will probably be about 1,300. But, again, this is not something that the market Authority has to bear in terms of cost or of finding the physical accommodation to deal with those who are at the moment adequately housed but who will add to the housing difficulties already extant in London.
Then, of course, if we put the existing population out, so to speak, to grass by making them part of the overspill housing problem, we are faced with the necessity of having nomination rights on the market Authority's housing. We shall all want an assurance that the local authorities, particularly if they deal with the overspill problem, will have the first nomination rights to at least an equivalent number of dwellings on the market Authority site.
The question of Battersea Power Station cannot be overlooked. This is not only in relation to housing development on a site in close proximity to the


power station and the railways but particularly to the scarcely silent possibilities of a heliport, Mr. Speaker, in your back garden. I am not at all convinced that the principles of town planning requirements will be satisfied by siting 3,000 people in dwellings on such a site.
Lastly, there is the question of stopping up roads and this is a matter of very considerable concern to the local authorities, and not only in terms of traffic movement. There are, beneath the proposed site, a number of extremely important sewers, including one of the main sewers of no less than 12 ft. in diameter. Access to these sewers for adequate maintenance, cleansing and replacement must be cardinal in any sort of planning.
Certainly, we in the local authorities in this area want much more reassurance than is contained in the Bill on this aspect. We must be assured that we shall have adequate access for this purpose, and, moreover, a very big say about which roads are to be stopped and which are to be developed and where. Those of us who have had any responsibility for road development in London will be only too unhappily aware of how plagued we are by our ignorance on where sewers, telephone cables and gas mains lie in relation to new roads. This is something which must not be allowed to happen on a site as large as 92 acres in an area which has not, I believe, been explored at this depth for very many years.
I hope that I have conveyed to the House, if I have not convinced it of them, the shortcomings of a Bill which gives to a new and scarcely democratically responsible Authority very important new powers. It may exercise those powers responsibly, and I believe that it will. But it will do so without the very careful control and democratic responsibility which alone is the right of a local authority. This underlies our argument against giving the Bill its Second Reading today. I ask the House to bear in mind the considerable potential danger of handing to a market Authority powers in terms of this Bill without some sort of check and countercheck to which we in this House are so welt accustomed.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) has given us a long and, of course, interesting dissertation on the powers of local authorities. I am certain that in whatever part of London or any other town it was sought to put this market, local authorities would raise exactly the same objections. Exactly the same thing occurs when the Ministry of Transport tries to build a new trunk road. Everybody says, "We want bigger and wider arterial roads, but do not bring them anywhere near the part of the country which I happen to control".
The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks, because I am sure that in this large Metropolis we are quite capable of tackling the planning problems of the local authority, or of what, the day after tomorrow, I think it is, will be—

Mr. Mellish: 1st April.

Mr. Doughty: A very suitable date—the Greater London Council.
I am glad that the Bill has come before the House because it implements a great deal of what I suggested in 1961. The original Measure proposed the reconstruction of the market on the present Covent Garden site. Hon. Members who were Members at the time will recollect that there was to be a kind of depot some distance away, where the bulk of the goods was to be stored. I completely disagreed with that proposal and I declined to vote on the Second Reading of the Bill. I will not weary the House by repeating my speech on the subject when the Bill came into Committee, but anybody who is interested can find it in Volume 640 of HANSARD, column 251.
Hon. Members will forgive me if I greatly paraphrase that speech. I described the impossible situation in the Covent Garden area, with its lack of transport facilities except that, if people could get through the narrow streets, they could drive a lorry there and then drive it away with the goods which they had bought. The idea that Covent Garden could be reconstructed into a market where goods were sold only by samples, which was the idea at the time,


while there would be another site where goods could be delivered in bulk and where purchasers would collect bulkier goods I described as being unworkable and quite contrary to the practice of agriculturists. I said that another site would have to be found.
A number of possible sites were suggested—King's Cross, the Caledonian Market, the Marylebone goods yard, and so on. I said at the time that those who were interested and concerned in the matter must take their time to find another site and I am glad that they have now done so.
Much of our imported fruit of the more expensive kind is flown in today, much more than people realise. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) that it will come in by helicopter, any more than I agree with the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central that in a short time we will have 1 million or 1½ million helicopter passengers a year. A helicopter takes only a very few passengers, is a very expensive form of transport and finds it difficult to compete with the railways or planes. However, I must not wander off into the argument of helicopters versus aeroplanes.
This is undoubtedly the best possible site which could be found in London. There has been reference to the congestion on the roads which may or may not exist. I say that it may not exist, because to this site much produce will be brought by rail, which is the best way of bringing bulky heavy articles from one part of the country to another, and I hope that much of the imported fruits and vegetables will be brought up the Thames from the docks by lighter, which will relieve much of the road transport.
Of course, there will have to be deliveries from the market to the shops, but I believe that there will be a tremendous relief of the congestion of traffic which now takes place in the Covent Garden area. That is the thing which hon. Members should bear very much in mind. One has only to go there in the morning, or, indeed, much later after the principal work of the market has been done, to see the chaos, with vehicles blocking every road round the market and causing obstructions in the roads leading to and from it.
This is a move in the right direction. Points can be raised, and have been raised in this debate, on the matters which will have to be discussed before the Select Committee. A project of this size will require a good deal of detailed discussion in the Select Committee. I do not propose to deal with points which will be raised there. The Committee will go into them fully and will hear all the objectors and those who have petitioned against certain parts of the Bill.
This is a wonderful opportunity for the redevelopment not only of the 10 acres of the Covent Garden site, but of the rather mean places around it largely occupied by the wholesale dealers who buy and sell in the market and have their depots and shops just outside. They will not want such conditions when they follow the market somewhere else. This provides a great opportunity for clearing and reconstructing a very large area. There should be a certain amount of office accommodation—I do not mind saying that—a certain amount of housing and theatres, opera houses and concert halls. I am sure that the planning will be wisely carried out in this great city of ours.
I hope that the Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading and that all the matters which have been raised today and others will be fully considered by the Select Committee.

9.12 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I hope that the House will forgive me if I make the second speech from the Government Front Bench on this very important matter. The reason is that in the Bill there are so many considerations outside the orbit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture which concern my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I have tried to make about four little speeches by interjections, but as these matters are so important I should get it on record that the many people who are concerned with the future redevelopment of this area have the right, apart from my hon. Friends who have asked questions, to know the position of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in this matter.
The case for siting the market at Nine Elms has been challenged—we have heard


the arguments—on the ground that it is too close to Central London for a market of the scale proposed and that the additional traffic it would create will worsen conditions in the area. I know that the Greater London Council is very anxious about the effect on its road proposals for the area and the liability of the cost of the additional improvements. The answer to this is that the siting of the market is something which the Market Authority will have to justify in Committee on the Bill.
Meanwhile, it must be said that my Minister has no objection in principle on planning grounds to the siting of the market at Nine Elms. Something has been said in the debate about the heliport site. There has been no firm decision on the heliport site. Nine Elms was thought to be the most suitable site by a Committee which considered possible helicopter sites in inner London. But, again, the question of the heliport site must be thrashed out in Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) talked about the possibility of people now living on the Nine Elms site being turned out of their homes without proper provision being made for rehousing. If the Bill were approved in its present form, the developers could not do this. They would have to submit a rehousing scheme under the Ninth Schedule of the Housing Act, 1957, which my Ministry would have to approve before any work could go ahead. So we have the last word on this.
There has been a number of inquiries about the extent of planning control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said that he had certain legal advice. I have taken legal advice from my Ministry and, with great respect, I think that the advice of our advisers might be considered to be a little more authentic than advice taken from other sources.

Sir Martin Redmayne: The hon. Gentleman must not be arrogant.

Mr. Mellish: I am not arrogant. I am just proud that we have a first-class staff. I have always thought that it was the job of any Minister at least to defend his own people. Those in Whitehall get enough attacks from ill-informed people

and I do not see why I should not defend them when I can.
I am told that under Clause 18(3) of the Bill, development for market purposes would be deemed to be development within Class XII of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963. Class XII confers planning permission but reserves certain matters—design, external appearance, means of access and siting within the limits of deviation—for the decision of the local planning authority.
As drafted, Clause 19, which would give the Market Authority power to build on the Nine Elms site a great variety of buildings—houses, shops, offices, etc.—for purposes other than the market, would also, in all probability, attract Class XII. There may well be a case for bringing these non-market buildings wholly within the control of the local planning authority. Discussions are at present taking place between my Ministry and the Market Authority.
As to the Covent Garden Market itself, I want to get it clear and on the record—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Before my hon. Friend deals with the Covent Garden Market site, on which, I am sure, he will give us all the assurances that we require, I should like to make this point concerning the powers of the authorities in the Nine Elms area. I am not questioning the advice which has been tendered to my hon. Friend, but I think that he has drawn incorrect conclusions from that advice.

Mr. Mellish: That is a matter of opinion. Simply because my hon. Friend has uttered that comment it does not necessarily mean that it is correct.

Mr. John Wells: Before leaving the housing aspect, will the hon. Gentleman kindly comment on the report by the committee of the London County Council from which I quoted, because his hon. Friend, the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), who has since left us, seemed to get this somewhat confused, as to the unsuitability of the area near the Battersea power station? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his Ministry would agree with the London County Council that this is probably an unsuitable area for housing?

Mr. Mellish: Indeed, that is why we conceded the Nine Elms site from the planning point of view for this purpose. We first considered the site from a housing viewpoint and there were a number of grave problems which certainly were not favourable to my Ministry. I repeat that this was why we gave planning permission, or, at any rate, why we had no opposition on planning grounds to the use of the site for market purposes.
I know that the Greater London Council, the City of Westminster and the Borough of Camden are advocating comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area around Covent Garden. I can only say that my right hon. Friend intends in planning regulations to make the Greater London Council the planning authority for this important area to facilitate the planning of redevelopment and that the Greater London Council will act on behalf of a proposed consortium of the Greater London Council, the new City of Westminster and the Borough of Camden.
I cannot go beyond this except to say that the Greater London Council will be given these powers. If, at the end of the day, any proposals are submitted to the Council, they will, I have no doubt, be submitted to my right hon. Friend, who would then exercise his judicial capacity. It would not be right for me to say what his final decision would be.
I give the assurance that there need be no fear that, somehow, all this will be done by private individuals, that local authorities will have no say in the matter and that the Greater London Council will stand aside wondering why it is all going on. The position is not like that at all.

9.19 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: At last, I venture to hope that we have come to the end of what I shall regard as a most useful and illuminating debate. I have been engaged in this business of the Covent Garden Market for a great many years. When my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio sat himself at the end of the Government Front Bench, he recalled vividly to me the night when he and a colleague of his from the Borough of Islington kept me, in defence of the then Covent Garden Market Bill that was before the House, out of my bed until a very late hour.
I recall that occasion to instance the natural violent local opposition that is apt to arise when proposals of a comprehensive nature are being made for the introduction of buildings and so on on a vast scale within certain local areas. I say this advisedly because, having heard the illumined speeches of hon. Members today, I have become almost convinced of the inestimable value of the scheme to such an extent that it seems that nobody ought to oppose it. On the other hand, I think that my hon. Friend and I were right to suggest that the Second Reading of the Bill should be suspended for six months, to make it quite clear to the House that, advantageous though the scheme may be in some respects, it nevertheless has, and can have, serious disadvantages for the amenities of that part of London.
Those who represent the area concerned, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett)—who represents a constituency on the Greater London Council, which after next Wednesday will be taking over from the L.C.C. and will be following me in the jobs that I have been doing in the House on behalf of that about-to-die body—my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), have all been doing the right thing in drawing the attention of the House to the serious planning and traffic problems which are likely to confront us with the scheme which I am only too glad to say has been found to be possible.
In the early days we on the L.C.C. were concerned about the intense fire risks at Covent Garden after a number of men had lost their lives, and we were looking for a place in which the empty containers might be stored. We were looking for a place where we could advise the Minister of Agriculture to build a new market. How great was the search, how many places were looked at and dismissed as being impossible for the purpose, I could not possibly enumerate, there were so many of them. The fact is that there now appears to be a site at which the possibilities are reasonably good.
I took to heart what was said about the traders themselves being in favour of this.


They were very much against a scheme that we had previously put forward. I also realise that if it is the South-West that is being served it can be very convenient, but I add this caveat from my experience, that to go from the South-East by road up to that point is not going to be easy. The vast new Elephant and Castle improvement is beginning to be too small for the vast volume of traffic now on the roads. In the near future another authority is going to be responsible not only for the roads but also for the traffic control in the London area and it will have to carry out all this business of traffic engineering, turning people right, and not letting them turn left when they want to do so.

Mr. John Wells: The hon. Lady said that there will be difficulty for transport coming from the South-East. I take her point about the Elephant and Castle, but she must hear in mind that the growers who supply the market will bring in their produce long before the rush hours. It will arrive in the middle of the night. The south-eastern approach from Kent is adequate by road to Nine Elms. The point about the convenience of traders in West and Central London is really the more valid of her two points.

Mrs. Corbet: I am very glad to be somewhat reassured. I like this optimism. It is very nice to be optimistic, but we have had a great deal of optimism about the traffic situation in the past, and all our forecasts have proved false. We can all forecast various things. We have such divergent views that some of us are hound to be right from time to time—and in this respect I think particularly of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). We cannot be sure about these things, but when we see the growing volume of traffic and know that the lorries have to return, we remember that it is not easy to get out of Central London during the morning peak hours as it used to be. Neither is it as easy as it used to be to get into London during the evening peak hours. It is extraordinary how the volume of traffic seems to be growing in both the morning and evening peak hours.
We were glad of the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary. We are sure that the details of the question will be thrashed out in the Select Committee, where we shall have the advantage of

being represented by very learned counsel and experts. We are a little on the lay side. We are particularly glad to have assurances concerning the redevelopment of the Covent Garden area. Nevertheless, I still have some qualms about the traffic situation. We must remember that the Vauxhall Cross improvement has been planned and is ready to proceed without any consideration having been given to the increase in the volume of traffic which will result from this scheme.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the heliport project was only in the minds of people. I know something about the history of this matter. I can recall a former Minister of Transport—not the same political colour as myself—putting up this proposal to the London County Council and the Lambeth Borough Council. I was informed that under no circumstances would the people of that area be subjected to the continuous noise that a heliport would entail. However, as a result of persuasion and some kind words from the Minister, the council decided to allow the scheme to go forward. The result is that certain buildings within the area are being notified to the Minister and, as a result, are not eligible for planning permission.
Should this scheme and the market scheme proceed together the councils responsible will have to take a very serious view of the matter. The Greater London Council feels that the Ministry of Transport should go very carefully into the question of the road traffic improvements that may be necessary, and that if it should be found necessary to spend a great deal of money during the period when the market is being constructed, in order to make sure that proper traffic facilities are there in time for the opening of the market, the Minister ought to give an assurance to the council that money will be available to enable it to proceed without having to drop other improvement schemes in other parts of London.
Having said that, and having expressed my satisfaction with the debate, I should like to say that I am authorised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

AGRICULTURE (MARKET DEVELOPMENT SCHEME)

9.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Market Development Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March 1965, be approved.
As hon. Members will know, this scheme of grants is aimed at the promotion of efficient marketing of agricultural and horticultural produce. It was introduced after the 1962 Annual Review for an experimental period of three years, and £1½ million was made available for the purpose. The three-year period ends on 31st March, and grants so far approved total rather less than £700,000. The purpose of the Order is to extend the scheme for a further three years with a view to making use of the unallocated part of the £1½ million. This will give effect to an agreement reached, subject to parliamentary approval, with the National Farmers' Unions during the recent Review.
Although less use has been made of the scheme than was provided for, 160 projects have been approved and desirable marketing developments have been assisted in several spheres. The scheme has been ably administered by the Agricultural Market Development Executive Committee set up by the National Farmers' Unions under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent). The success of the scheme has in no small measure been due to the interest stimulated in the industry by the Committee. I compliment the right hon. Member on the enthusiastic way in which he has carried out his duties as chairman.
During the recent review it was also agreed desirable to make provision for the payment of a higher rate of grant than at present for certain projects initiated by the Committee. An Order, subject to negative Resolution procedure, will shortly be laid before the House for this purpose. Grants at present vary from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the cost of projects, depending upon the particular circumstances in each case. At present, applicants, naturally, confine

themselves largely to projects which promise to give a financial return. The object of the higher rate of grant, which will be 90 per cent., is to enable the Committee to initiate desirable research in fields which otherwise would be neglected and which would not lead to significant financial gains to the applicants. However, as I have said, the object of the present Order is to extend the operation of the scheme for a further three years and I ask hon. Members to give that their approval.

9.33 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: May I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the kind remarks he made about the members of the Committee and myself in operating this scheme. I welcome the Order, which will prolong its existence for a further three years. I think that the scheme has been a considerable success in stimulating the improvement of marketing for farmers and growers generally.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the scheme started three years ago. In fact, it was mooted for four years ago, at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames), who was then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At that time there were considerable doubts whether it was workable to have a scheme of grants to stimulate this development, but, in the event, it was brought into line for 1962.
I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in congratulating the three farmers' unions of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the calibre of the membership of the Committee set up to perform this very difficult task. It is always very difficult to get a lay body to administer grants of public money and to work directly with a Government Department. This is what they have done. Making grants in this field of agriculture and horticulture marketing, which is a highly complex and diverse field, is a particularly difficult exercise. The fact that this has been done for three years without a single disagreement between the Committee and the Minister is a credit both to the Ministry's officials and to the Committee, and, indeed, to the officers of our Committee who have worked so well.
It has been, I believe, a very successful pump-priming exercise to stimulate


farmers in this way. In this field, at present, very rapid changes are taking place. All of us who are interested in farming are most concerned to help and to stimulate farmers to catch up with the developments which are taking place, making the best of it in their own interests and for the good of the whole community. There are two major forces in agricultural marketing today. First, is the housewife's demand for standard quality, oven-ready food, which she can buy off the shelf at the supermarket and know that she will get good value, which she can cook without the work of preparation.
At the same time as this is happening in ever greater volume and ever greater spread, the big farmers are improving their techniques of production and marketing and so reducing their unit costs, their profit margins. These two factors are pressing very hard on the position of the small and medium-sized farmers. All farmers should be studying the changing tastes and demand of the consuming public, but the smaller farmer cannot set up a marketing organisation which will relate him directly to it.
As I said, in both industry and commerce, the prizes go to the big battalions. When this scheme was set up, my right hon. Friend, and now hon. and right hon. Members opposite, were wise enough to see that something was needed here to give grants to encourage farmers to join in this development. We are enabled under this scheme to give grants to encourage farmers in market research, to find out what consumers want in improved grading, better presentation and, perhaps most important, in the formation of groups of farmers who can bring their produce together and so put themselves in the position of the big trader able to make contracts direct with the whole-salers.
There has been a great variety of schemes within the 160 which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, spectacular ones like grant-aiding the agricultural exhibit in the Moscow agricultural exhibition last year—which was a great success and has opened fresh markets for this country in Russia, as well as being of considerable value in improving relations with the Russians—and, at the other end of the scale, the clock auction scheme in the Gloucester market in the

West Country. The most important work has been the encouragement of farmers to come together in groups for the improved marketing. Some have been in the form of companies, all in the general spirit of the Industrial and Provident Acts, some have been new co-operatives, and some have been old co-operatives making new developments. They cover the whole field of farm products.
We have taken particular trouble to try to encourage farmers in the fatstock field. I suppose that it would be true to say that we have had the most success there, and that a large number of weaner schemes have been started whereby the breeders sell their weaners to the fatteners, a number of breeders come together in a group and make contracts with the fatteners and make provision for a continuous supply of high quality weaners. This is of great benefit to both sides, because they get a continued supply of a guaranteed quality. I see that no less than two-fifths of the weaners sold off farms in Wales go to these groups, to the great benefit of both sides.
We have had some success with calf groups, but they have been up against the difficulty of markets with great fluctuations over the last two or three years, which have made contracts extremely difficult to keep. Some are going well now and those have brought the producers of calves together, mainly in the West of the country, to form groups to make contracts with the rearers of calves, sometimes in the West and sometimes in the Midlands, and finally to sell to the fatteners of the animals, who largely are tending to be in the Eastern Counties, where the large quantities of grain are grown.
We have this interesting pattern of specialisation developing, with these big beef operators in the Eastern Counties producing beef extremely efficiently and at a much younger age—at about 12 months rather than the traditional process of two-an-a-half years. In the process not a few calves coming from the dairy herds, sired by beef bulls in Cheshire and Derbyshire, find their way north of the Border to Scotland and, in due course, back again to England as prime Scotch beef. There is a good deal in the process of management and feeding which helps to put the quality on before the animals are finished. We have to


help in the development of specialised vehicles, which are very important to the transport of these calves and weaners if they are to avoid stress and set-back in being moved from one farm to another.
We have been able to help a number of farmers in this way to come together in groups and to get regular contracts which have been of benefit to them, but, on the whole, farmers are reluctant to come together in groups like this and to accept the discipline of the market which is involved. They are slow to recognise the benefits which they will get from being able to guarantee a certain standard of quality in the end product, which will progressively win them a reputation and thereby, over the years, give them a better return. Particularly when we have fluctuating markets, it is extremely difficult to get farmers to maintain an even supply.
I believe that the reason why we have had less success at the marketing end, at the slaughtering end, with the larger fatstock is that it is necessary to have a pretty considerable volume of fatstock flowing through at the slaughtering end if it is to be possible to make contracts with the big wholesalers or the big stores for a regular supply of high-quality meat. So far we have not had much success at that end. But this, I think, will come. As well as in fatstock, we have similar schemes going in potatoes, eggs, vegetables and cereals.
I should be quite wrong if I left the picture that this is universal. It is true to say that we now have a number of good examples where these schemes are operating to the benefit of both producers and consumers. Because all schemes receive full publicity and reports of every scheme are published in the newspapers, they are beginning to make their impact on the rest of the farming community. The lesson which we are trying to put over is that good marketing is not concerned only with finding a good outlet for the finished product.
Good marketing is concerned with finding out what the housewife wants in the way of a joint, of vegetables or of potatoes, and then reflecting that information back to the producing end,

and with fatstock to the breeding end, so that the right kind of product will eventually come right the way through to the consumer. That is good marketing, and it calls for a really good organisation at every stage. It has been possible under the scheme to make grants to help this step by step.
I particularly welcomed the Parliamentary Secretary's news that under the new scheme we will have 90 per cent. grants for special purposes. This will make it possible for the Committee itself to promote research that would not be interesting to groups of farmers, marketing boards and others. One piece of research I am anxious to get under way is the conducting of a survey of all the groups which are now working. We urgently need to know just what is a viable group. Nobody really knows at present.
I suspect that the right size group for production purposes is the wrong size for marketing purposes. A big group to get enough produce coming through in a continuous stream might be right for marketing purposes while small groups might be right for production purposes, small enough to obtain the right team spirit and to have the necessary discipline accepted by all producers.
Perhaps we should go in for a number of small production groups, brought together in one organisation and one marketing group to make an outlet for their produce at the end of the day. By having a 90 per cent. grant it means that we need to find a sponsor with only 10 per cent. to put up to get this under way. I am sure that this will be of great benefit to all concerned.
There was another activity in which we were able to take part. We have found since we started on this work that we in this country are woefully behind in the development of horticultural and agricultural marketing. I suppose that the proximity to markets is so easy that we have not given much thought to the matter. In America, for example, there is a university chair of horticultural and agricultural marketing in every State. In Britain, there was not one, but because we began to learn about the problems involved we realised that it was necessary, as soon as we possibly could, to


get some fundamental research going in this sphere and to get chairs of agricultural and horticultural marketing set up. We need to obtain some basic thought and have critical material collected to obtain a sound development of agricultural and horticultural marketing in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames), when Minister, was good enough to assist in the establishment of the first chair of agricultural marketing in Newcastle and recently, with the help of the growers and others, we have obtained a second chair, in horticulture, at Wye College. Perhaps we might call ourselves the midwives of this process, which I am sure will be a valuable development for the whole farming world.
This is a sphere of activity which needs fostering and development. Probably some independent body will be needed to foster and develop it in future. It will need to grow and it will need carefully looking after if it is to meet this major problem of agricultural and horticultural marketing. We still have a long way to go and farmers and growers need a lot of help which at present they cannot be given because, first, we do not have the information and, secondly, because we do not have the people to give it to them.
We are at the beginning. We have something useful in this scheme and we have done a useful job. I am glad that the Minister wishes us to continue doing it for another three years. This is only the tiny start towards solving a big problem. We will need a lot of help from the Ministry and we look to the Minister with confidence to give us that help.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the object of the Order is to make grants available for the efficient marketing of agricultural and horticultural produce. Three years ago this was a new departure and I am pleased to hear that the scheme has worked so successfully. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) and his Committee for their efficient working of the scheme in its early stages.
Marketing has always been important, and never more so than now, because it appears that the margin left for the producers is gradually diminishing. The attitude of successive Governments towards the industry make it imperative that a better marketing system is set up. Year by year at the Price Review the industry has been asked by increased efficiency to absorb millions of £s of increased costs, and this is not a principle just introduced by the present Government at the recent Price Review.
The industry has proved conclusively over the years that it is capable of increasing its standards of efficiency, but the benefits of this increase are lost by bad marketing. The gap between the figure that the farmer gets at the farm gate and what the housewife pays over the counter appears to be ever widening. How are we to overcome this problem? Surely, it must be by a better marketing system.
This is equally true of the horticulturist, and particularly of the small man if he is to be able to carry on. The small man who is efficient can normally be relied upon to present his produce in a condition that will appeal to the customer, and it is probably in that respect that he can most effectively compete with the large producer. However, it must be remembered in his case, in particular, that no matter how efficient he may be, if a large influx of produce from foreign exporting countries arrives here the market can be undermined. This is particularly true of perishable goods.
Where marketing boards would be an advantage, they should be set up, and I think that it will be readily agreed that this would be in the best interests of producers and consumers. We realise that there are many young men with the necessary experience and inclination who would like to take up agriculture and horticulture, but are unable to do so because of the high initial cost. Only a very limited amount of help could come to them through this scheme, but we hope that there may be other ways whereby they can be helped.
Apart from marketing boards, a great deal can be achieved through cooperative marketing. Here, we must give credit to the N.F.U. for having made considerable progress, in co-operation


with various bodies, in promoting cooperative buying and selling. Where co-operative societies have had loyal support from producers they have proved a great success, but they must have active support, and, at the outset, there must be a good deal of voluntary work to get the societies working.
Producers who live near large consuming centres have a distinct advantage over those in remote areas. For those of us in the north of Scotland, transport is basic to the whole question. In this area we can produce the finest quality of farm produce procurable, but we do not reap the benefit because of our distance from consuming centres. Already A.M.D.E.C. is doing much in promoting better marketing in our areas, but there is a great deal more to be done.
I therefore hope that this Order will be approved for a further period, and that many more will avail themselves of its benefits. It is very interesting to know that the grants are to be increased. I hope that that fact will be made widely known, so that many more societies such as those I have referred to will be set up in various centres in order to help with this very important question of marketing.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) on the work that he has done. The industry as a whole is indebted to him. I congratulate the N.F.U. on what it has done. Here, I think, there is a chance for me to congratulate the Government. I have not been able to do that in the last few days, but on this matter they have shown great wisdom by extending the period of this scheme. Perhaps this is the last time I shall be able to congratulate them for some time.
As a farmer and as a director of a co-operative movement, I am wholeheartedly in favour of co-operatives. This may sound strange coming from a Conservative, but I think that our future lies in organised marketing and in working together. There is no doubt that this is the sort of help we have received in the past and this is the sort of help we need in the future. Therefore, I welcome this scheme. It is another great step forward.
I do not believe that all the advantages are widely known. The Minister should have a publicity drive so that everyone knows the advantages of this scheme, because they are not well known in the South-West. I have slipped up. Having just started a pig group in the South-West, I did not realise that I could obtain some help through A.M.D.E.C. That shows that I must be slipping, but I will seek to remedy it in the future.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: On this occasion everyone has congratulated the Government on what they have done. This is certainly a change from what has been happening in the last few days. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) has said, particularly his point about the work the Committee did and the fact that in practically every case agreement was reached with the Ministry. There was no disagreement on what the Committee did.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a few of the schemes to show the interest which has been taken. He spoke of the survey he hoped to make into the number of groups in existence. He looked forward to having 90 per cent. and having to raise 10 per cent. to do this.
We are all interested in the question of chairs in agricultural marketing at the various universities. These are absolutely essential in this day and age. The right hon. Gentleman also made the point that the farmers are the people to encourage, particularly those in smaller schemes rather than those in bigger and more exotic schemes.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) spoke of the need to foster these schemes and to make them and the benefits arising from them widely known. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torrington, because of his lack of knowledge, did not get a grant. However, that was not our fault. It was the fault of his colleagues, when they were the Government. I undertake that we will make these schemes as widely known as possible.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty appreciates the importance of absorbing costs by better marketing. I am sure that the hon.


Gentleman has read the White Paper very carefully. He should know that his statement about what the Government are trying to do by means of the recent Price Review in relation to farmers absorbing costs was not correct.
That is all I have to say, except to hope that the House will accept the Order and to thank the hon. Member once again for his kind remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Market Development Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March 1965, be approved.

SOUTH-WEST METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL BOARD (CHAIRMAN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: It is some 14 years since I last sought from one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, permission to raise a matter on the Adjournment. I therefore feel tonight that I am entitled to claim some measure of quasi-virginity, which is perhaps rather appropriate in a debate involving the Minister of Health. In the course of what I have to say in raising this matter I shall feel hound to offer some criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the appointment of the chairman of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board, which he handled personally. My criticisms, therefore, will be directed not to a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman has to assume the general responsibility which any Minister has to assume in respect of his Department but to a matter which, I do not think he disputes, he handled himself.
Before doing so I should like in fairness to say two things. First, having had some experience of ministerial office, I know that the patronage involved in making these appointments is one of the most time-consuming, boring and tedious of a Minister's duties, and I know what disagreeable problems they raise. Secondly, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman, in that since I gave him notice that I would be raising these matters he is present to answer the criti-

cisms I shall make. That is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, as I have noted.
The chairman of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board for the next few days only is a constituent of mine, Mr. S. W. L. Ripley. As anyone who is acquainted with the public life of north Surrey or south-west London will be aware, he is a man of considerable standing. He is a man in his 50s who was until recently chairman of Surrey County Council. He is at present serving as a member of the Greater London Council and he is—and this is material to the discussion—and has been throughout his adult life a Conservative. He has taken an active part in Conservative politics, and a good many years ago stood as a Conservative Parliamentary candidate.
Mr. Ripley finishes at the end of this month his first term as chairman of the hospital board. It has not been a complete term, since he was appointed to fill a vacancy which had arisen, and he has served broadly some two years of the normal three-year term for which these chairmen are appointed still to run. Normally—and this is part of the case I wish to present—he would have expected to be reappointed. I base that statement not on any assertion of my own by on an Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a Written Question, No. 75, of mine on 22nd February.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman what the practice had been about the reappointment after a first term of chairmen of these boards during the last 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman gave me an answer to the effect that the average term served by chairmen of these boards retiring in the last 10 years had been 8¼ years and that of those who had completed a first term, 12 had been reappointed and one had not. Mr. Ripley, therefore, in completing not a full term, but about two years of the original three-year term, was, in the normal way, entitled to expect reappointment. I am sure that the House will agree that the figures which I have given from the right hon. Gentleman's Answer sustain that. proposition.
Some weeks ago, however, Mr. Ripley was seen, on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman, by a very senior officer of his


Department. Unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, I shall not mention that official's name, since in these matters concerning Ministerial responsibility it is right, I believe, that we should not involve permanent officials.
This very senior officer told Mr. Ripley that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to reappoint him and suggested that, in the circumstances, the most comfortable course to follow would be for Mr. Ripley to indicate that he did not wish to be considered for reappointment. Mr. Ripley was very surprised at this approach, particularly in the light of the general background to which I have referred and of which he was aware. He was given no explanation, but was left with the clear impression that the right hon. Gentleman was under some pressure in respect of these appointments.
To his credit—I hope that the House will agree—Mr. Ripley declined to take the easy way out of saying that he did not wish to be considered for reappointment. As a man of some experience in public life, he had, on the contrary, taken great pleasure in performing his responsible duties in his own area. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not reappoint him and, shortly thereafter, an announcement was made in the Press—I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in informing me in advance—of the appointment to this office of Viscount Addison.
It is no part of my argument this evening that there is anything against the noble Viscount. He is a 60-year old stockbroker who lives in the Chichester district and commutes daily to London. He has, I believe, a very good record on the local management committee, and he was, in fact, appointed as a member of this regional hospital board by one of my right hon. Friends before the change of Government. But it is significant and most material to the point I make that the noble Viscount is in receipt of the Labour Whip in the House of Lords. He is one of that small—I was about to say select—band of hereditary peers who are members of the Labour Party in the other place. Bluntly, the point I make is that this is the predominant reason for his appointment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) asked the right

hon. Gentleman a Question a little time ago about the introduction of party politics into these matters. On 8th February last, he asked the Minister of Health
to what extent, party political considerations are taken into account by him in making appointments and reappointments of chairmen of regional hospital boards".
The right hon. Gentleman gave an interesting Answer:
To no greater extent than my predecessors took such considerations into account, so far as I am aware. My aim is to appoint as chairmen those who, in my judgment, have most to contribute to the efficient running of the hospital service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 6.]
In other words, the Minister is accepting that party political considerations do enter into these appointments, but he is seeking to justify his taking these matters into account on the basis that, to the same extent, according to him, they have been taken into account by his predecessors.
I do not take the extreme view that these matters should be excluded. That would be asking more of human or, perhaps, ministerial nature than it would be reasonable to ask. If, when a genuine vacancy arose, the right hon. Gentleman, out of a number of suitable candidates, were to give preference to one with whose political views he happened to be in sympathy, I do not know that—although, perhaps, it would not be a very good thing—anyone would wish to take him seriously to task.
If the matter rested here, I certainly should not have sought Mr. Speaker's permission to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight. What, however, does seem to me to deserve censure is to create a vacancy, contrary to the normal practice, for the purpose of filling it with a chairman of the right hon. Gentleman's political point of view. That is the distinction that I stress. No doubt—the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to get the facts and will, no doubt, tell the House—my hon. Friends who were his predecessors appointed a good many Conservatives to these boards. They also appointed a good many people of the right hon. Gentleman's view. Indeed, I think that one of them appointed the right hon. Gentleman himself, and, if I may say so, made a very good appointment in so doing.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): Reappointed me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is even more relevant to the point we are discussing. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his punctilious and helpful correction. One of his predecessors from my party also appointed Viscount Addison as a member of the board.
But the point to which I direct and invite the attention of the House is that to create a vacancy, no matter what pressures the right hon. Gentleman may have been subjected to, for the purpose of appointing a member of his political party raises a question of quite a different order of seriousness to that of, when a vacancy comes along, choosing one of his own political colleagues, who may be a perfectly admirable fellow, instead of an equally admirable fellow of another political persuasion.
This is the gravamen of the charge which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be answering in a moment. I very much hope that at this stage of the proceedings he will not seek to defend himself by Indulging in any criticism of Mr. Ripley's capacity in the discharge of this office. First of all, it would be a ludicrous thing to do in view of the proved quality in public service of this gentleman. Secondly, it would be a very unconvincing thing to do, because in all the discussions that have taken place—discussions between the right lion. Gentleman's officer and Mr. Ripley, and the discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and myself—this has never previously been suggested.
If the right hon. Gentleman were—I think that I have too high a view of him to expect that he will—to try to argue the matter on this line, it would be singularly unconvincing and, if he will allow me to say it, singularly shabby at this stage of the proceedings, because it has never been suggested before.
What I want to know is what the right hon. Gentleman intends for the future. I understand that Viscount Addison had no particular enthusiasm for taking up this appointment, that lie was, indeed strongly pressed and urged on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman to do so. Certainly, he takes over—if in the circumstances he thinks it right to take over—in singularly unhappy circumstances, in the knowledge that, whatever his personal qualities—I do not criticise them; I do

not wish to say anything about him—he comes into this office as a result of what seems to many of us a wrong treatment of his predecessor by the right hon. Gentleman.
The view which I express is not confined to those of my political view, certainly in the part of the country which I represent. The local newspaper, the Surrey Comet, which is a wholly independent and very ably run newspaper, published a leading article severely criticising the right hon. Gentleman for this transaction, and that is the view of a large number of people outside the political party to which I happen to belong, and representative of general opinion—the feeling that a distinguished public servant has been treated in an exceptional and unfair way with the only possible explanation that of a preference by the right hon. Gentleman for someone of his own political party.
May I go a little further? The supersession—for that is the substance of failure to reappoint in these circumstances—of a chairman of one of these boards on political grounds is a very serious thing from the point of view of the National Health Service and of the hospital service. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great personal experience of hospital board administration, will know that the introduction of this kind of element, with all its repercussions and interactions, must be harmful to the efficiency of the Health Service.
It seems to me rather strange and rather unhappy that this should have been done by a Minister who, of all Ministers, has personal experience of the running of the National Health Service. It is most surprising. Two points are involved. First, there is, it seems to me the wrong done to my constituent. Secondly, there is the damage done to the hospital service through the fact that the noble Viscount takes over in circumstances which, I am afraid, will be difficult and unhappy for him—circumstances in which he must know, as we all know, that his predecessor has not been fairly treated. That is not a good thing for the Health Service. It is the kind of thing which, if the Minister is to repeat it, will cause great damage to the service for which he has responsibility.
It is a case of individual injustice. It is a case, also, of damage to a vital


national service. I do not know what explanation the right hon. Gentleman will give. I hope that he will acknowledge, and acknowledge in a way that the House will accept, that he made an error of judgment in this case in difficult circumstances. If he does that, I am sure that the House will accept it, as it always does. If he does not, he will have raised an issue of which he will not have heard the last and of which, I fear, our great hospital service will not have heard the last, either.

10.17 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): At the outset of his remarks, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made some general observations about patronage with which I would not go the whole way but from which I would not wholly dissent. Bearing in mind that a Minister of Health must every year make some 650 new appointments and reappointments to Hospital Boards and Executive Councils, it would be rather surprising if he were not, from time to time, to be criticised for some of them.
Certainly, few of my predecessors have been immune and I have been looking up the precedents. I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), when Minister of Health, was questioned on at least five occasions in this House, both on individual appointments he had made and on his general policy in making appointments to Boards and Committees. On none of these occasions was he prepared to give reasons for his decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) asked the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in 1963:
… what system or method is employed in the selection of suitable persons to fill vacancies on regional hospital boards and hospital boards of management.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
Selection is in accordance with the Third Schedule to the National Health Service Act, 1946."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 111.]
In 1962, the right hon. Gentleman had been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) why a member of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board

had been reappointed to serve on that Board. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
… because I considered him to be a fit person."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 89.]
I propose on this occasion to be guided by precedent.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames must appreciate, on reflection, how unwise it would be for any Minister publicly to give his reasons for any appointment he made and equally for any decision not to reappoint an existing member or chairman of a Board. I propose to say, therefore, no more than that I am satisfied that the change I have effected in the chairmanship of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board is in the best interests of the hospital service.
Reappointment after the first term of office, while common, I admit, has never been regarded as automatic. Nor, in my view, should it be so regarded. It follows from that that failure to secure reappointment cannot legitimately be seen as a reflection on any individual. There is no question, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest, of creating a vacancy. A vacancy existed, as it always exists at the termination of a period of office of a member or chairman.
Mr. Ripley was given every opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted to state that he did not wish to continue to serve as chairman. Had he done so, no one would have thought of questioning his decision, or his motives in taking the decision. That he did not avail himself of this opportunity was entirely his own choice. I do not propose to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's version of the conversation which is said to have taken place between Mr. Ripley and one of my officers, a conversation which I thought was understood on both sides to be confidential.
The right hon. Gentleman saw fit to suggest that I had imported party political considerations into my decision to replace Mr. Ripley. Before the right hon. Gentleman pursues that line further, I should like to advise him to read a Fabian pamphlet entitled "Unpaid public service", which was published


last summer. The pamphlet sought to analyse the political affiliations of regional hospital board members and chairmen and it described the position which had been reached, no doubt quite fortuitously, after 13 years of a Conservative Government.
Of 15 regional hospital board chairmen, so the pamphlet states, not a single one was known to be a Labour supporter. If this is the position, and I have no wish to check it, nor do I intend to do so, it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman considers it to be a reasonable position.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the right hon. Gentleman say which of those 15 appointments were appointments made to replace a chairman who had served only one term?

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that that is particularly relevant, I am merely telling the right hon. Gentleman what this Fabian pamphlet found the situation to be after 13 years of a Conservative Government, and I still await his answer as to whether he considers that that is a reasonable position, or whether he feels that an appointment ceases to be nonpolitical only when it goes to a Socialist.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question and he must take the answer. I told him, if

he had listened to my speech, that I did not feel that one could press a Minister entirely to disregard the political views of those whom he appointed. What I said was that he should not press their claims to the point of refusing to follow the normal practice of reappointment after one term in order to create a vacancy, which is precisely what he has done in this case and for which, as he has now told the House, there is no precedent.

Mr. Robinson: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is asserting that my predecessors did not entirely disregard party political considerations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Robinson: All I want to say, in conclusion, is that I propose to continue to discharge my duties of appointing chairmen and members of hospital boards in what I feel to be the best interests of the Service, and that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall resist any pressures to do otherwise, from whatever quarter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.